the early states had estabhshed churches,rnand even the federal Constitution —rnwhich sought scrupulously not to favorrnparticular religious establishments orrnsectarian creeds—contained several referencesrnto our shared Christian heritage.rnThe First Amendment, which guaranteedrnfreedom of religion and forbadernCongress from legislating “an establishmentrnof religion,” was not—as most nowrnwrongly believe—an attempt to create arn”Godless Constitution” or a secular society.rnIn fact, the First Amendment wasrndesigned to preserve the prerogatives ofrnthe people of the states to decide forrnthemselves how best to integrate religionrnand society.rnPreserving these state prerogatives—rnthe express subjects of the Ninth andrnTenth amendments, and the implicitrnaim of most of the rest of the Bill ofrnRights—was a reflection of another basicrnprinciple of the Framers’ design. Thisrnprinciple, inherent in the Constitution’srnscheme of dual state and federalrnsovereignty, might be described as thernprinciple oi proliferating variety. It assumesrnthat there is no single solution forrnsocial problems for all places and allrntimes, and is sensitive to the need for thernpeople prudently to adjust to differing socialrnand environmental circumstances.rnThe Framers believed that true libertyrncould not be mandated by the centralrngovernment but had to emerge fi-om thernvery soil, as it were, of the individualrnstates and localities.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnNUNSENSErn”Who did more for the world: ‘selfish’rnfinancier Michael Milken, or ‘selfless’rnnun Mother Teresa? ‘MichaelrnMilken —no question,’ I answeredrnfirmly, ‘We’re all much, much betterrnoff as a result of what he did.’ YetrnMilken is denounced, and MotherrnTeresa praised, because people arerntaught to view suffering as a standardrnof moral value. ‘But I say, “What’s sorngood about suffering?” I look at thernvalue that people create.”‘rn—from a fundraising letter by DavidrnKelley, executive director of thernInstitute for Objectivist StudiesrnSeveral things follow from this principle,rnincluding the realization that perfectrnequality among citizens is unattainable.rnThere must always be some hierarchyrn(and some sort of natural aristocracy) inrnsociety. In addition, variety demandsrnconsiderable liberty in order to flourish,rnand liberty is secured by personal propertyrnand by the rule of law. Finally, liberty,rnproperty, morals, and religion must bernsafeguarded by intermediate entities betweenrnthe individual and the cential government.rnThese entities include states,rntowns, communities, churches, and —rnperhaps most important—the family.rnIt takes no more than a statement ofrnthese basic principles to realize just howrnfar the federal courts have strayed fromrnthe Framers’ understanding. Since thernSupreme Court’s decisions in the earlyrn60’s that mandatory prayer and Biblernreading in the public schools were unconstitutionalrn—decisions which pervertedrnthe original understanding of the FirstrnAmendment as securing state religiousrnprerogatives—the federal courts have rabidlyrnenforced a secular vision of society.rnUtterly unfamiliar with basic constitutionalrnprinciples such as those found inrnthe Federalist—in which Madison andrnJay both recognize the importance of arnshared Christian culture in ensuring thernvirtues necessary for self-governmentfederalrnjudges and most national opinion-rnmongers have driven religion (whichrnthey see as divisive) from the publicrnsquare. Religion is still tolerated, ofrncourse, but it is regarded by most membersrnof the chattering classes as a characterrnflaw best displayed in private. Fortyrnyears ago, it was not uncommon for publicrnfigures to refer to America as a “Christianrnnation,” but any politician who todayrnrepeats this obvious truth is roundlyrnexcoriated for intolerance.rn”Tolerance,” our current public creedrnthat anything goes, is another way of expressingrnthe ascendance in our culturernnot of classical liberty —which wasrngrounded in responsibility and dutyhutrnof self-indulgence. Look at thernso-called “mystery passage” from thernplurality opinion in the 1992 PlannedrnParenthood v. Casey decision. The passage,rninvoked in support of the SupremernCourt’s indefensible ruling that thern14th Amendment guarantees abortionrn”rights,” reads: “At the heart of liberty isrnthe right to define one’s own concept ofrnexistence, of meaning, of the universe,rnand of the mystery of human life.” Thernbest that can be said of the “mystery passage”rnis that it is fatuous; the worst is thatrnit is subversive of societal order and of thernFramers’ conception of human life as arnsacred gift from God. In 1787, commonrnlaw regarded most abortions as murder,rnand the Framers would hardly have objectedrnto any state’s prohibition of abortion.rnAt the time of the 14th Amendment,rnmany states had such prohibitions,rnand no one suggested that the amendmentrnoutlawed such legislation. The notionrnthat the 14th Amendment, in thernservice of “a right to define one’s ownrnconcept of existence, of meaning, of thernuniverse, and of the mystery of humanrnlife,” mandates a woman’s right to terminaternthe life of a child within her is a perversionrnof history and a repudiation ofrnour constitutional heritage.rnThe actual decision in Casey reaffirmedrnRoe V. Wade’s mistaken conclusionrnthat abortion was constitutionallyrnprotected. Moreover, it declared, interrnalia, that the state of Pennsylvania wasrnprevented from requiring married womenrnto notify their spouses before havingrnabortions. Casey illustrates the doublyrntwisted nature of current 14th Amendmentrnjurisprudence. The SupremernCourt decisions prohibiting the statesrnfrom governmental encouragement ofrnreligion perversely read the 14th Amendment’srnclauses—”No state shall make orrnenforce any law which shall abridge thernprivileges or immunities of citizens ofrnthe United States; nor shall any State deprivernany person of life, liberty, or property,rnwithout due process of law; nor denyrnto any person within its jurisdictionrnthe equal protection of the laws” —tornmean that the strictures which thernFramers of the Bill of Rights placed onrnthe federal government ought to be imposedrnon the states as well. The actualrnlanguage of the 14th Amendment wasrncrafted to ensure that newly freed slavesrnhad the same opportunity to use therncourts to protect their property and contractrnrights as did other citizens. Thernamendment was not designed to tearrndown the foundation of dual sovereigntyrnon which the Constitution had beenrnerected. It is the grossest judicial usurpation,rntherefore, to read the 14th Amendmentrnas “incorporating” Bill of Rightsrnprohibitions against the states.rnOther travesties resulting from thisrnmisreading of the Equal Protectionrnclause include the prohibition on staternbicameralism when one house in thernlegislature is elected based on politicalrnunits or geography; the prohibition onrn48/CHRONICLESrnrnrn