(View the footnoted
version on Liberty Council’s website)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SARAH DOE and THOMAS DOE, on behalf
of themselves and their minor child, JAN DOE
v Civil Action No. 99-508
HARLAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;
DON MUSSELMAN, in his official capacity
as Superintendent of the Harlan Country
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID BARTON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF PARKER
Upon being duly sworn by the undersigned officer empowered to
administer and attest to oaths, the Affiant, David Barton, testifies as follows:
1. I am a recognized authority in American history,
particularly concerning the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Federal Eras.
2. I personally own a vast collection of thousands of
documents of American history predating 1812, including handwritten works of the
signers of the Declaration and the Constitution.
3. As a result of my expertise, I work as a consultant to
national history textbook publishers and have been appointed by the State Boards
of Education in States such as California and Texas to help write the American
history and government standards for students in those States. Additionally, I
consult with Governors and State Boards of Education in several other States and
have testified in numerous State Legislatures on American history.
4. I am the recipient of several national and international
awards, including the George Washington Honor Medal, the Daughters of the
American Revolution Medal of Honor, Who’s Who in America (1997, 1999), Who’s
Who in the World (1996, 1999), Who’s Who in American Education (1996, 1997),
International Who’s Who of Professionals (1996), Two Thousand Notable American
Men Hall of Fame (1995), Who’s Who in the South and Southwest (1995, 1999),
Who’s Who Among Outstanding Americans (1994), Outstanding Young Men in America
(1990), and numerous other awards.
5. I have also written and published numbers of books and
articles on American history and its related issues. (Original Intent,
1996; Bulletproof George Washington, 1990; Ethics: An Early American
Handbook, 1999; Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence,
1995, and many others).
6. I offer the following opinion regarding whether the Ten
Commandments are a historical document in America’s civil and judicial history
based upon my expertise and study in the areas of American history and the
forces and ideas that formed the basis for our system of laws and government.
7. Opponents to the public display of the Ten Commandments
offer several grounds for their objections, including that “there
is no “˜standard version’ of the Ten Commandments”; that “there
is not agreement on exactly what constitutes the Ten Commandments“;
and that “the Ten Commandments are not a “˜secular’ moral code that
everyone can agree on” and therefore are not appropriate to be included in a
display of documents that have helped shape America’s history. In fact, these
groups warn that “if
the Decalog [sic] was publicly displayed“
it “could create religious friction, leading to feelings of anger and of
and that “these
emotions are precisely the root causes of the Columbine High School tragedy.“
8. The Decalogue addresses what were long considered to be
man’s vertical and horizontal duties. Noah Webster, the man personally
responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, Â¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten
Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we
owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
9. Modern critics, while conceding “six or five
Commandments are moral and ethical rules governing behavior,” also point out
that because the remaining “four of the Ten Commandments are specifically
religious in nature,” that this fact alone should disqualify their display.
They assert that only one of the two “tablets” of the Ten Commandments is
appropriate for public display.
10. In an effort to substantiate this position historically,
critics often point to the Rhode Island Colony under Roger Williams and its lack
of civil laws on the first four commandments to “prove” that American
society was traditionally governed without the first “tablet.” However, they
fail to mention that the Rhode Island Colony was the only one of
the thirteen colonies that did not have civil laws derived from the first four
divine laws -the so-called first “tablet.” Significantly, every other early
American colony incorporated the entire Decalogue into its own
civil code of laws.
11. This affidavit will demonstrate that, historically
speaking, neither courts nor civil officers were confused or distracted by the
so-called “various versions” of the Decalogue and that each of the
Ten Commandments became deeply embedded in both American law and jurisprudence.
This affidavit will establish that a contemporary display of the Ten
Commandments is the display of a legal and historical document that dramatically
impacted American law and culture with a force similar only to that of the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
THE INCORPORATION OF DIVINE LAW INTO AMERICAN COLONIAL LAW
12. The Ten Commandments are a smaller part of the larger
body of divine law recognized and early incorporated into America’s civil
documents. For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut-established in
1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the
direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution -declared that the Governor and his
council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice
according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the
rule of the word of God.”
13. Also in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted “all
those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth,
to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24. 3, 4; 2 Chron. II. 3; 2 Kings. II.
14. The following year, 1639, the New Haven Colony adopted
its “Fundamental Articles” for the governance of that Colony, and when the
question was placed before the colonists:
Whether the Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the
direction and government of all men in all dut[ies] which they are to perform
to God and men as well in the government of families and commonwealths as in
matters of the church, this was assented unto by all, no man dissenting as was
expressed by holding up of hands.
15. In 1672, Connecticut revised its laws and reaffirmed its
civil adherence to the laws established in the Scriptures, declaring:
The serious consideration of the necessity of the
establishment of wholesome laws for the regulating of each body politic hath
inclined us mainly in obedience unto Jehovah the Great Lawgiver, Who hath been
pleased to set down a Divine platform not only of the moral but also of
judicial laws suitable for the people of Israel; as . . . laws and
constitutions suiting our State.
16. Significantly, those same legal codes delineated their
capital laws in a separate section, and following each capital law was given the
Bible verse on which that law was based because:
No man’s life shall be taken away . . . unless it
be by the virtue or equity of some express law of the country warranting the
same, established by a general court and sufficiently published, or in case of
the defect of a law, in any particular case, by the Word of God.
17. There are other similar examples, but it is a matter of
historical fact that the early colonies adopted the greater body of divine laws
as the overall basis of their civil laws. Subsequent to the adoption of that
general standard, however, the specifics of the Decalogue were then incorporated
into the civil statutes.
WHICH ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ?
18. In order to avoid the alleged misunderstanding that
critics claim accompanies the reading of the Decalogue, for the purposes of this
affidavit, these Commandments as listed in the Bible in Exodus 20:3-17 and
Deuteronomy 5:7-21 (and in a shortened version in Exodus 34:14-28) will be
1. Have no other gods.
2. Have no idols.
3. Honor God’s name.
4. Honor the Sabbath day.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not perjure yourself.
10. Do not covet.
19. The following sections will fully demonstrate that each
of these commandments was individually encoded in the civil laws, and
consequently became a part of the common law of the various colonies.
HOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPRESSED
IN CIVIL LAW IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Have no other gods.
20. This first commandment of the Decalogue is incorporated
into the very first written code of laws enacted in America, those of the
Virginia Colony. In 1610, in a law enacted by the Colony leaders, it was
[S]ince we owe our highest and supreme duty, our greatest
and all our allegiance to Him from whom all power and authority is derived,
and flows as from the first and only fountain, and being especially soldiers
impressed in this sacred cause, we must alone expect our success from Him who
is only the blesser of all good attempts, the King of kings, the Commander of
commanders, and Lord of hosts, I do strictly command and charge all Captains
and Officers of what quality or nature soever, whether commanders in the
field, or in town or towns, forts or fortresses, to have a care that the
Almighty God be duly and daily served, and that they call upon their people to
hear sermons, as that also they diligently frequent morning and evening prayer
themselves by their own example and daily life and duties herein, encouraging
21. A subsequent 1641 Massachusetts legal code also
incorporated the thrust of this command of the Decalogue into its statutes.
Significantly, the very first law in that State code was based on the very first
command of the Decalogue, declaring:
1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or
worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut.
13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20.
22. The 1642 Connecticut law code also made this command of
the Decalogue its first civil law, declaring:
1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or
worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6
and 17.2, Ex. 22.20).
23. There are numerous other examples affirming that the
first commandment of the Decalogue indeed formed an historical part of American
Have no idols.
24. Typical of the civil laws prohibiting idolatry was a 1680
New Hampshire idolatry law that declared:
Idolatry. It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority
thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and
manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to
death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10.
25. Additional examples from colonial codes demonstrate that
the second commandment also was historically a part of American civil law.
Honor God’s name.
26. Civil laws enacted to observe this commandment were
divided into two categories: laws prohibiting blasphemy and laws prohibiting
swearing and profanity. Noah Webster, an American legislator and judge, affirms
that both of these categories of laws were derived from the third commandment of
When in obedience to the third commandment of the Decalogue
you would avoid profane swearing, you are to remember that this alone is not a
full compliance with the prohibition which [also] comprehends all irreverent
words or actions and whatever tends to cast contempt on the Supreme Being or
on His word and ordinances [i.e., blasphemy].
27. Reflecting the civil enactment of these two categories
embodying the third commandment, a 1610 Virginia law declared:
2. That no man speak impiously or maliciously against the
holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons . . . upon pain of
3. That no man blaspheme God’s holy name upon the pain
28. A 1639 law of Connecticut similarly declared:
If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the Father,
Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed
blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, he shall be put to death. Lev.
29. Similar laws can be found in Massachusetts in 1641,
Connecticut in 1642, New Hampshire in 1680, Pennsylvania in 1682, 1700, and
1741, South Carolina in 1695, North Carolina in 1741, etc. Additionally,
prominent Framers also enforced the Decalogue’s third command.
30. For example, Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued
numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited
swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the
prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders, on
July 4, 1775, Washington declared:
The General most earnestly requires and expects a due
observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army
which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; and in like manner
requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty,
a punctual attendance on Divine Service to implore the blessings of Heaven
upon the means used for our safety and defense.
31. Washington began issuing such orders to his troops as
early as 1756 during the French and Indian War, and continued the practice
throughout the American Revolution, issuing similar orders in 1776, 1777, 1778,
32. This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity
drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently
appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the
1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania,
the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of
Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
33. Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal
text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the
Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:
Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil
arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be
who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct
the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of
maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of
His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of
perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately
proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart
and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish
them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule
to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human
punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to
punish offences against religion.
34. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision
subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court )
reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:
The true principles of natural religion are part of the
common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the
common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be
prosecuted at common law.
The court then noted that its State’s laws against
blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and
original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United
States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791,
unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and
digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . “ He had just risen from his seat
in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of
this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are
greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of
both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he
states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and
imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to
object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into
operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been
retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the
legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.
35. The Decalogue’s influence on profanity and blasphemy
laws was reaffirmed by subsequent courts, such as the 1921 Supreme Court of
Maine, the 1944 Supreme Court of Florida, and others.
36. Many additional sources may be cited, but it is clear
that the civil laws against both profanity and blasphemy-many of which are still
in force today-were originally derived from the divine law and the Ten
Commandments. These examples unquestionably demonstrate that the third
commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and
Honor the Sabbath day.
37. The civil laws enacted to uphold this injunction are
legion and are far too numerous for any exhaustive listing to be included in
this brief affidavit. While a representative sampling will be presented below,
there are three points that clearly establish the effect of the fourth
commandment of the Decalogue on American law.
38. First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the
recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, Â¶ 2, stipulating that the
President has 10 days to sign a law, “Sundays excepted.” The “Sundays
excepted” clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions
of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution,
carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the
States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various
States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal
Constitution. The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912
by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this
provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:
It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill
within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his
signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with
the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard
being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial
mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord’s Day as a day exempted
by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then,
recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which
exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord’s
Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles
contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was
so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the
Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was
recognized as a day of rest.
39. The second point establishing the impact of the fourth
commandment of the Decalogue on American law is seen in the civil process
clauses of the early State legal codes which forbade legal action on the
Sabbath. For example, an 1830 New York law declared:
Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday,
and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the
officer to damages.
40. Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1682 and
1705, Vermont in 1787, Connecticut in 1796, New Jersey in 1798, etc.
41. The third point establishing the long-standing effect of
the fourth commandment on American law and jurisprudence is demonstrated by the
fact that Sabbath laws remain constitutional today, and many communities still
practice and enforce those laws.
42. Examples of the early implementation of this fourth
commandment into civil law are seen in the Virginia laws of 1610, the New Haven
laws of 1653, the New Hampshire laws of 1680, the Pennsylvania laws of 1682 and
1705, the South Carolina laws of 1712, the North Carolina laws of 1741, the
Connecticut laws of 1751, etc.
43. In 1775, and throughout the American Revolution,
Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued military orders directing that the
Sabbath be observed. His order of May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge was typical:
The Commander in Chief directs that divine service be
performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock in those brigades to which there are
chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to
them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set
an example to their men.
Washington issued numerous similar orders throughout the
44. In the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to
enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths
to uphold the Sabbath. For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to
preserve the Sabbath; in 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law; in
1786, Virginia enacted a law written by Thomas
Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison; in 1798, New Jersey enacted a
twenty-one-part law; in 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law; in
1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law; etc.
45. These Sabbath laws-and scores of others like them-were
nothing less than the enactment of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue. In
fact, in 1967, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania provided a thorough historical
exegesis of those laws and concluded:
“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt
thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord
thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work.” This divine pronouncement became
part of the Common Law inherited by the thirteen American colonies and by the
sovereign States of the American union.
46. In 1950, the Supreme Court of Mississippi had similarly
The Sunday laws have a divine origin. Blackstone (Cooley’s)
Par. 42, page 36. After the six days of creation, the Creator Himself rested
on the Seventh. Genesis, Chapter 2, verses 2 and 3. Thus, the Sabbath was
instituted, as a day of rest. The original example was later confirmed as a
commandment when the law was handed down from Mt. Sinai: “Remember the
Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
47. Similar declarations may be found in the courts of
numerous other States, including New York, Alabama, Florida, Oregon, and
Kentucky, Georgia, Minnesota, etc.
48. However, before any of these contemporary courts had
acknowledged that the Sabbath laws were derived from the Decalogue, John Jay,
the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, had confirmed that the
source of civil Sabbath laws were the divine commands. As he explained:
There were several divine, positive ordinances . . . of
universal obligation, as the Sabbath.
49. There are numerous other examples demonstrating that the
fourth commandment of the Decalogue played an important historical role in
American civil law.
50. While contemporary critics argue that the first four
commands of the Decalogue were inconsequential in our history or that they
should not be publicly displayed today, the facts prove that they exerted a
substantial influence on American law and jurisprudence. In fact, the 1922 Iowa
Supreme Court rejected the assertion that only one side of the Decalogue was
important to American law, declaring:
The observance of Sunday is one of our established customs.
It has come down to us from the same Decalogue that prohibited murder,
adultery, perjury, and theft. It is more ancient than our common law or our
form of government. It is recognized by Constitutions and legislative
enactments, both State and federal. On this day Legislatures adjourn, courts
cease to function, business is suspended, and nation-wide our citizens cease
51. Whether individuals today agree with those early laws
based on the first four commandments in the Decalogue in no manner lessens their
Honor your parents.
52. This fifth command begins the so-called second “tablet”
of the Decalogue-the section addressing “civil” behavior that even critics
acknowledge to be appropriate for public display. This portion of the Decalogue
formed the basis of many of our current criminal laws and modern courts are not
reticent to acknowledge and enforce these commandments. As the Supreme Court of
Indiana declared in 1974:
Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the
progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten
53. Yet the mandates of the Decalogue currently embodied in
our criminal laws are no less religiously-based than were the first four
commandments. For example, a 1642 Connecticut law addressing the fifth
commandment specifically cited both the Decalogue and additional Bible verses as
the basis for its civil laws related to honoring parents:
If any child or children above sixteen years old, and of
sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their normal father or mother,
he or they shall be put to death; unless it can be sufficiently testified that
the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such
children, or so provoke them by extreme and cruel correction that they have
been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death [or] maiming. Ex.
21:17, Lev. 20, Ex. 20:15
This law also appears in other State codes as well.
54. Even three centuries after these early legal codes, this
commandment was still influencing civil laws-as confirmed in 1934 by a Louisiana
appeals court that cited the fifth commandment of the Decalogue as the basis of
civil policy between parents and children:
” ˜Honor thy father and thy mother,’ is as much a
command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as
holy by every Christian people. ˜A child,” says the code, ˜whatever be
his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.’ “
55. Other courts have made similar declarations, all
confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of
American civil law and jurisprudence.
Do not murder.
56. The next several commands form much of the heart of our
criminal laws, and, as noted by Noah Webster, one of the first founders to call
for the Constitutional Convention, the divine law is the original source of
several of those criminal laws:
The opinion that human reason left without the constant
control of Divine laws and commands will . . . give duration to a popular
government is as chimerical as the most extravagant ideas that enter the head
of a maniac. . . . Where will you find any code of laws among civilized men in
which the commands and prohibitions are not founded on Christian principles? I
need not specify the prohibition of murder, robbery, theft, [and] trespass.
57. The early civil laws against murder substantiate the
influence of the Decalogue and divine laws on American criminal laws. For
example, a 1641 Massachusetts law declared:
4. Ex. 21.12, Numb. 35.13, 14, 30, 31. If any person
commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter committed upon premeditated
malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary and just defense nor
by mere casualty against his will, he shall be put to death.
5. Numb. 25.20, 21. Lev. 24.17. If any person slayeth
another suddenly in his anger or cruelty of passion, he shall be put to
6. Ex. 21.14. If any person shall slay another through
guile, either by poisoning or other such devilish practice, he shall be put
58. Perhaps the point is too obvious to belabor, but similar
provisions can be found in the Connecticut laws of 1642, the New Hampshire laws
of 1680, etc.
59. Courts, too, have been very candid in tracing civil
murder laws back to the Decalogue. For example, a 1932 Kentucky appeals court
The rights of society as well as those of appellant are
involved and are also to be protected, and to that end all forms of
governments following the promulgation of Moses at Mt. Sinai has required of
each and every one of its citizens that “Thou shalt not murder.” If that
law is violated, the one guilty of it has no right to demand more than a fair
trial, and if, as a result thereof, the severest punishment for the crime is
visited upon him, he has no one to blame but himself.
60. Even the “severest punishment for the crime” is
traced back to divine laws. As first Chief Justice John Jay explained:
There were several divine, positive ordinances . . . of
universal obligation, as . . . the particular punishment for murder.
61. There certainly exist more than sufficient cases with
declarations similar to that made by the Kentucky court above to demonstrate
that the sixth commandment of the Decalogue exerted substantial force on
American civil law and jurisprudence.
Do not commit adultery.
62. Directly citing the Decalogue, a 1641 Massachusetts law
If any person committeth adultery with a married or espoused
wife, the adulterer and adulteresses shall surely be put to death. Ex. 20.14.
63. Other States had similar laws, such as Connecticut in
1642, Rhode Island in 1647, New Hampshire in 1680, Pennsylvania in 1705, etc. In
fact, in 1787, nearly a century-and-a-half after the earliest colonial laws,
Vermont enacted an adultery law, declaring that it was based on divine law:
Whereas the violation of the marriage covenant is contrary
to the command of God and destructive to the peace of families: be it
therefore enacted by the general assembly of the State of Vermont that if any
man be found in bed with another man’s wife, or woman with another’s
husband, . . . &c
64. Subsequent civil laws on adultery passed in other States
used the same basis for their own laws.
65. Two-and-a-half centuries later, courts were still using
divine laws and the Decalogue as the basis for the enforcement of their own
State statutes on the subject. For example, in 1898, the highest criminal court
in Texas declared that its State laws on adultery were derived from the
The accused would insist upon the defense that the female
consented. The state would reply that she could not consent. Why? Because the
law prohibits, with a penalty, the completed act. “Thou shalt not commit
adultery” is our law as well as the law of the Bible.
66. Half-a-century later in 1955, the Washington Supreme
Court declared that the Decalogue was the basis of its State laws against
Adultery, whether promiscuous or not, violates one of the
Ten Commandments and the statutes of this State.
67. Other courts made similar declarations. These and
numerous additional examples demonstrate that the seventh commandment of the
Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
Do not steal.
68. The laws regarding theft that indicate their reliance on
divine law and the Decalogue are far too numerous even to begin listing. Perhaps
the simplest summation is given by Chancellor James Kent, who is considered,
along with Justice Joseph Story, as one of the two “Fathers of American
Jurisprudence.” In his classic 1826 Commentaries on American Law, Kent
confirmed that the prohibitions against theft were found in divine law:
To overturn justice by plundering others tended to destroy
civil society, to violate the law of nature, and the institutions of Heaven.
69. Subsequent to James Kent, numerous other legal sources
have reaffirmed the divine origin of the prohibition against theft. For example,
in 1951, the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged the Decalogue as the basis for
the unchanging civil laws against theft:
In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian
countries, is found the admonition “Thou shalt not steal.”
70. In 1940, the Supreme Court of California had made a
Defendant did not acknowledge the dominance of a
fundamental precept of honesty and fair dealing enjoined by the Decalogue and
supported by prevailing moral concepts. “Thou shalt not steal” applies
with equal force and propriety to the industrialist of a complex civilization
as to the simple herdsman of ancient Israel.
71. Significantly, other courts acknowledged the same,
including the Utah Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the Florida
Supreme Court, the Missouri Supreme Court, etc.
72. However, the eighth commandment of the Decalogue provided
the foundation for civil laws other than just those against theft. For example,
in 1904, an Appeals Court in West Virginia cited the eighth commandment of the
Decalogue as the basis for laws protecting the integrity of elections:
[T]here are some people who at least profess to believe
that elections, being human institutions, are governed solely by human
inclinations, and are not subject to the supervision or control of that moral
code of ethics promulgated by God through the greatest of all human law-givers
from Sinai’s hoary summit. This, however, is a great and grievous error, for
the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” forbids not only larceny
as defined in the Criminal Code, but also the unjust deprivation of every
person’s civil, religious, political, and personal rights of life, liberty,
reputation, and property-even though done under the sanction of legal
73. And in 1914, a federal court acknowledged that the
Constitution’s “takings clause” was an embodiment of the Decalogue’s
Bared to nakedness, the facts show that the Rochester
Company simply coveted and desired its neighbor’s property, and to make this
covetous purpose effective it seeks to violate, not only the act of congress,
which says, “But this shall not be construed as requiring any such common
carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another
carrier engaged in like business,” but that constitutional provision which
in effect but restates another of the Decalogue when it provides, “Nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
74. There are numerous other examples demonstrating that the
eighth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law
Do not perjure yourself.
75. A 1642 Connecticut law against perjury acknowledged its
basis to be in divine law, declaring:
If any man rise up by false witness, wittingly and of
purpose, to take away any man’s life, he shall be put to death. Deut. 19:16,
76. Similar laws on perjury declaring their basis to be in
divine law and the Decalogue may be found in Massachusetts in 1641, Rhode Island
in 1647, New Hampshire in 1680, Connecticut in 1808, etc.
77. Courts were also open in acknowledging their indebtedness
to the Decalogue for the civil perjury laws. For example, 1924, the Oregon
Supreme Court declared:
No official is above the law. “Thou shalt not bear false
witness” is a command of the Decalogue, and that forbidden act is denounced
by statute as a felony.
78. And in 1988, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, citing the
Decalogue, reproached a prosecutor for introducing accusations during
cross-examination of a defendant for which the prosecutor had no evidence:
When the State or any party states or suggests the
existence of certain damaging facts and offers no proof whatever to
substantiate the allegations, a golden opportunity is afforded the opposing
counsel in closing argument to appeal to the Ninth Commandment. “Thou shalt
not bear false witness . . . “ Exodus 20:16.
79. Numerous other courts have cited the Decalogue as the
source of the laws on perjury, including courts in Missouri, California,
Florida, etc. These and many other examples demonstrate that the ninth
commandment of the Decalogue was incorporated into American civil law and
Do not covet.
80. This tenth commandment in the Decalogue actually forms
the basis for many of the prohibitions found in the other commandments. That is,
a violation of this commandment frequently precedes a violation of the other
commandments. As William Penn, the framer of the original laws of Pennsylvania,
[H]e that covets can no more be a moral man than he that
steals since he does so in his mind. Nor can he be one that robs his neighbor
of his credit, or that craftily undermines him of his trade or office.
81. John Adams, one of only two individuals who signed the
Bill of Rights, also acknowledged the importance of this commandment, declaring:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property
is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt
not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven,
they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be
civilized or made free.
82. Many courts have also acknowledged the importance of this
provision of the Decalogue. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court
cited this prohibition as the basis of civil laws against defamation. In 1904,
the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing
election fraud. In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws
targeting white-collar crime. And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited this
Decalogue prohibition as the basis of civil laws against modern forms of cattle
rustling. There are numerous other examples that all affirm that the tenth
commandment of the Decalogue did indeed form an historical part of American
civil law and jurisprudence.
OPINIONS OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR GOVERNMENT
83. The Colonial, Revolutionary, and Federalist Era laws, as
well as contemporary court decisions, provide two authoritative voices
establishing that the Decalogue formed the historical basis for civil laws and
jurisprudence in America. As a third authoritative voice, the Framers themselves
endorsed those commandments, both specifically and generally.
84. In addition to the approbation already given throughout
this affidavit by John Adams, John Jay, Noah Webster, et. al, there are
many other specific declarations, including that of William Findley, a soldier
in the Revolution and a U. S. Congressman, who declared:
[I]t pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of
His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone.
This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is
immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the
85. Additionally, John Quincy Adams, who bore arms during the
Revolution, served under four Presidents and became a President, and who was
nominated (but declined) a position on the U. S. Supreme Court under President
Madison, similarly declared:
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well
as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal
application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of
which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.
. . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane
antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for
morality as this Decalogue lays down.
86. However, in addition to their specific references to the
Decalogue, the Framers also used other terms to describe that code of laws-terms
such as the “moral law.” For example, John Witherspoon, President of
Princeton and signer of the Declaration, declared:
[T]he Ten Commandments . . . are the sum of the moral law.
87. Thomas Jefferson agreed, declaring that “the moral law”
is that law “to which man has been subjected by his creator.”
88. The Framers also used a third descriptive term synonymous
with the Decalogue and the moral law: the natural law. As Chief Justice John
Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers, explained:
The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of
the universe to all mankind.
89. The Framers’ understanding of natural law must not be
confused with the secular view of natural law embraced in Europe at that time.
The American view of natural law was not secular-a fact made exceptionally clear
by Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and the father of the
first organized legal training in America. As Wilson explained:
As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been
called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called
revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature;
as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of
nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or
revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it
is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has
done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of
His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that
law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law
are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences
run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense
forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred
oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same
obligation, operating universally and perpetually.
90. Notice additional evidence that the Framers considered
“natural law” as a synonym for divine law:
In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally bound
by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator. Samuel
Adams, Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration
[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the
existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and
wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of
human society and government. John Quincy Adams
The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and
dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human
laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.” Alexander Hamilton,
Signer of the Constitution
The “law of nature” is a rule of conduct arising out of
the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing
prior to any positive precept. . . . [These] have been established by the
Creator, and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in
Scripture, “ordinances of heaven.” Noah Webster, Judge and Legislator
The law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated
by God Himself, is of course superior to and the foundation of all other laws.
. . . No human laws are of any validity if they are contrary to it; and such
of them as are of any validity, derive all their force and all their
authority, mediately or immediately, from their original. William Findley,
Revolutionary Soldier, Member of Congress
[The] law established by the Creator, which has existed
from the beginning, extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all
times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which He makes
His way known to man and is paramount to all human control. Rufus King,
Signer of the Constitution, Framer of the Bill of Right
God . . . is the promulgator as well as the author of
natural law. James Wilson, Signer of the Declaration and the Constitution,
Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court
The transcendent excellence and boundless power of the
Supreme Deity . . . [has] impressed upon them those general and immutable laws
that will regulate their operation through the endless ages of eternity. . . .
These general laws . . . are denominated the laws of nature. Zephaniah
Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text
91. The Framers clearly considered that the natural law and
the moral law, of which the Decalogue was a major component, provided the basis
for our civil laws and jurisprudence.
92. However, even if it should be argued that the Decalogue
is nothing more than the embodiment of a religious rather than a secular code,
even this, in the views of the Framers, would be insufficient grounds for its
exclusion from the public arena. For example, Justice William Paterson, a signer
of the Constitution placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington,
Religion and morality . . . [are] necessary to good
government, good order, and good laws.
93. Justice Joseph Story, later appointed to the Supreme
Court by President James Madison, similarly declared:
I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil
society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that
Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period
in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its
foundations. (emphasis added)
94. John Adams, an accomplished attorney and an author of a
commentary on the Constitution of the United States, similarly declared:
The study and practice of law . . . does not dissolve the
obligations of morality or religion.
95. Dewitt Clinton, the Framer who introduced the 12th
Amendment, also declared:
The laws which regulate our conduct are the laws of man and
the laws of God. . . . The sanctions of the Divine law . . . cover the whole
area of human action.
96. Perhaps the best reflection of the collective belief of
the Framers that religion was not to be excluded from civil society is enactment
of the Northwest Ordinance, one of the four organic laws of the United States.
That law, passed in 1789 by the same Congress that framed the Bill of Rights,
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged.
97. This federal law declares that “religion, morality, and
knowledge” are necessary for “good government.” Expounding
on the reasoning behind this belief, signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon,
who served on over 100 committees while in Congress, declared:
[T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual
way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is
the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to
98. However, the Decalogue clearly is more than just a
religious code. It-in its entirety-provides the base for much of America’s
common law. As the Supreme Court of North Carolina declared in 1917:
Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every
case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can
never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral
principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal
rock of justice and equity.
99. In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly declared:
A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten
Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of
Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not
one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem
directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue . . .
100. Significantly, Americans seem to recognize the important
contributions made to our society by the Decalogue. Consequently, there is a
centuries old American propensity to honor both the Ten Commandments and Moses,
the deliverer of the Decalogue.
101. For example, in 1776 immediately following America’s
separation from Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were
placed on a committee to design a seal for the new United States. Both of them
separately proposed featuring Moses prominently in the symbol of the new nation.
Franklin proposed “Moses lifting his wand and dividing the Red Sea” while
Jefferson proposed “the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud
by day and a pillar of fire by night.”
102. A further indication of this American proclivity to
honor Moses, the deliverer of the Ten Commandments, is seen in the U. S.
Capitol. Adorning the top of the walls around the House Chamber are the
side-view profile reliefs of 23 great lawgivers, including Hammurabi, Justinian,
John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, George Mason,
and 16 others. Significantly, there is only one relief of the 23 that is full
faced rather than in profile, and that one relief is placed where it looks
directly down onto the House Speaker’s rostrum, symbolically overseeing the
proceedings of the lawmakers. That relief is of Moses.
103. Not only Moses but also depictions of the Ten
Commandments adorn several of the more important government buildings in the
nation’s capitol. For example, every visitor that enters the National Archives
to view the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence (and other
official documents of American government) must first pass by the Ten
Commandments embedded in the entryway to the Archives. Additionally, in the U.
S. Supreme Court are displayed two depictions of the Ten Commandments. One is on
the entry into the Chamber, where, engraved on the lower half of the two large
oak doors, are the Ten Commandments. The other display of the commandments is in
the Chamber itself on a marble frieze carved above the Justices’ heads. As
Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in Lynch v. Donnelly:
The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were
heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion:
Moses with the Ten Commandments.
104. Other prominent buildings where large displays of the
Ten Commandments may be viewed include the Texas State Capitol, the chambers of
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and scores of other legislatures, courthouses,
and public buildings across America. In fact, the Ten Commandments are more
easily found in America’s government buildings than in her religious
buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from
coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America’s civil
105. Historical evidence, drawn from civil law codes,
judicial decisions, and declarations of great American lawgivers, affirms and
reaffirms that the entire Decalogue has made a seminal contribution to the early
common law and still continues today to make a significant contribution to the
modern common law.
106. The fact that some may not agree with all of the
commandments of the Decalogue does not mean it should be prohibited from display
any more than does the fact that not everyone agrees with all of the protections
in the Bill of Rights requires that the Bill of Rights should not be
displayed-or that because not everyone agrees with what the American flag
represents requires the flag should not be displayed. Even though some may wish
that the American ensign was the Stars & Bars rather than the Stars &
Stripes, the reality is otherwise-and the reality is also that all ten of the
commandments in the Decalogue had a unique, distinct, and significant impact on
both American law and jurisprudence.
107. To prohibit the display of the Decalogue simply because
the first four commandments are more religious in nature than are the other six
is like permitting the display of George Washington’s “Farewell Address”
or Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” speech or the “Mayflower Compact”
only if each document is displayed without its religious portions. In a display
of any of the aforementioned works, it is not the advocation of religion that is
occurring but rather the recognition of a significant historical contribution
made to America that also happens to include religion.
108. Aside from the Declaration, the Constitution, and the
Bill of Rights, it is difficult to argue that there is any single work that has
had a greater or more far-reaching impact on four centuries of American life,
law, and culture than the Decalogue. For this reason alone, the Decalogue merits
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the
foregoing; that the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF PARKER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
______ day of MARCH, 2001, by DAVID BARTON, who is personally known to me or who
has produced identification and who took an oath/affirmed.
My Commission expires:
To sign up on the WallBuilders email list and receive future information about historical issues and Biblical values in the culture, visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTsignup.asp.