The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America's Constitutional Crisis

by Jenna Ellis

America is in the midst of a cultural and constitutional law crisis that began more than sixty years ago and was further exacerbated by the 2015 Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision. How did we become a culture that lacks objective morality and embraces secular ideas, hinging on the majority whim of nine justices? How do we get back to being a biblically moral, upright society and recognizing the U.S. Constitution as supreme law of the land?

In The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, Jenna Ellis makes a compelling case for the true roots of America’s Founding Documents in objective morality and how our system of government is founded upon the Christian worldview and God’s unchanging law, not a secular humanist worldview. She provides a unique perspective of the Founding Fathers as lawyers and how they understood the legitimate authority of biblical truth and appealed directly to God’s law for the foundation of America.

Weaving together the legal history and underpinning worldview shifts in American culture, Ellis advocates how Christians must change the basic reasoning of our appeal and effectively engage our culture. Finally, she proposes the solution to reclaim objective, biblical morality in law that the Founders themselves provided for through Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

This book is for every Christian who seeks to understand the times and our constitutional and cultural crisis.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

223 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 4, 2016

Reviews

[Jeffrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's difficult to consider someone a legal scholar when she puts sarcasm quotes around "same-sex marriage" and has the grandiosity to declare that she, not the Supreme Court, is the final interpreter of the Constitution -- and all this just in the first pages of the book's introduction.

Jenna Ellis is a Christian nationalist. Our liberal democracy doesn't work for her, the US has lost its way, and we need to ditch precedent -- especially cases that solidified the wall of separation between church and state -- and she and those like-minded need to step up and "return" the nation to a mythical past that never existed.

(Such idealization of the "past," when no one questioned gender and gender roles, when men exercised authority over government and families, when "outsiders" -- gays, racial and religious minorities, socialists -- were isolated, denied equal rights, and kept in place by religious intolerance, is the stuff of fascists, bul I'll say no more about American fascism.)

Bizarrely, Ellis writes "the law is our codified morality" and "the law is therefore always inherently moral." Even high school students have enough life experience to know this is not true. Law and morality do sometime overlap, but anything beyond that recognition is too far a stretch to be credible. There are many acts that are legal but immoral (banks closing seemingly dormant accounts and seizing their assets, without notifying account owners, comes to mind) and there are many moral acts that are illegal (leaving water bottles in the Sonoran Desert to save the lives of immigrants who crossed the border).

I'm not alone in rejecting Ellis' notion. The Supreme Court does too: "this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code" (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).

Lawrence v. Texas shines a light on why "The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution"'s crux is flawed thinking. When Lawrence's precedent Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986, 25 states had laws prohibiting sodomy. (The fact that nine of the 25 states criminalized only "homosexual sodomy" should have been enough for Ellis to recognize a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but no.) The 25 states that prohibited sodomy expressed "what a society values and its morality," which necessarily means sodomy was immoral in those states. Yet we are left with 25 other states whose "codified morality" expressed the opposite -- that sodomy was moral (or at least not immoral) because no law prohibited it. This paradox cannot stand, especially for Ellis who believes in "objective morality."

When Lawrence overruled Bowers, the number of states prohibiting sodomy had shrunk to 13, with four of these banning gay sex specifically. Did sodomy switch from immoral to moral immediately when the Lawrence decision was announced? I would say gay sex (and "heterosexual sodomy") were moral to begin with, in that morality is based on eliminating or minimizing harm to others, and no one is harmed during consensual sex. Ellis, no doubt, disagrees.

Ellis' arguments fail because she confuses the Supreme Court we have with the Supreme Court she wishes we have, just as much as she confuses religious prescriptions and proscriptions with morality and immorality, respectively. This is the result of choosing to be cocooned within evangelical Christianity, revisionist history, and far-right media, among other influences, which are also the root of her intolerance of all she deems intolerable and offensive. God has called Ellis to her mission, which means compromise and even empathy are no-go zones. No one has standing to question "God's law" and moral standards.

This is Ellis' sincerely held religious belief, but "[i]t matters not that [her] belief was a part of [her] professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only" (Reynolds v. United States, 1878). As assertive Ellis is in insisting she is historically and constitutionally correct, "it was still belief, and belief only."

[Robert Renteria · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Answer to the American Dilemma

Jenna Ellis explains Constitutional from an original interpretation. Sad to say this is gravely in need. However, this writing is an excellent means to lay a foundation. I am a home educator and will be using this as fundamental part of my U.S. Government/Civics curriculum. If you have any interest of restoring true order and harmony to the United States this is a must read. Jenna Ellis proves worldview and politics are not mutually exclusive. Lest we understand this and act assertively we will lose what was handed down over 200 years ago. Beneficial to anyone regardless of persuasion who has interest in this country.

[Fernando Navarro · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about teaching how to interpret the constitution. The premise goes kind of like this: "The letter of independence says that human being has an inherent value and that value comes from God, so then the constitution has to be interpreted under that value. Therefore, everything in the constitution has to be interpreted under God values, and in this case is the God of the Bible"

I can't agree totally with the premise. What are the atheist going to do? If the Supreme Court has to interpret the constitution under the author's premise that means that the atheist has to follow the godly interpretation? For example, the author talks about gay marriage and how the constitution was violated by the Supreme Court, so how could that be so? The author says that since we have to interpret the constitution under God's values so then we cannot accept gay marriage, but when does the Bible say that the Bible has to be used as a tool for the constitution of a country? Doesn't the Bible say that the Kingdom of God is spiritual and He'll establish his terrenal kingdom when Jesus come again? So then, why are we asking non Christian people to hold onto our beliefs? Paul already established it:

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Co 5:13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”


No, we cannot judge the outsiders! We can't tell them how to behave like Christian if they aren't Christian. That's the reason of my problem with the author's premise. The Kingdom of God needs to be established in our hearts in the people's heart not in a constitution of a country.

[Daniel Lee Mishkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A necessary inflection on the origin and intent of our nation's founding documents.

It is not an easy read, and requires some focus, but it is an overwhelmingly paramount topic that deserves at least a second glance. Agree with it or not, it is important to recognize the objections this book raises to the current direction out American Republic is heading towards.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Common sense and a clean life - the stuff our forefather’s intended.

[Robert Greenstien · Rating 3 out of 5]

One star for logic and faultly analysis. Three stars for absurdly funny by blaming feminism and the 60s.

A decent review of the religious cases that drive the evangelicals crazy, who delude themselves with a fantasy that the Constitution originates with biblical truths (an oxymoron) completely ignoring the nonestablishment clause in Article 2 and and who anguish that the
Courts don't see it that way. Its an amusing xray of the brainwashed evangelical mind but otherwise of no use whatsoever or less.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

And while you venerate a piece of paper, they shut down your church, and separate your family. And sure, when you are alone, you can debate the constitutionality of State actions. And work to pay your taxes, because there is an army of Ellis living the good life on your money, and you don't want them to get a real job, and what? work?

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting perspective

I found the book to be well researched and clearly written. The passionate voice is tempered by well thought out legal theory.

[Graham Webb · Rating 1 out of 5]

Simplistic and bogged down in dogma.

[Will · Rating 2 out of 5]

Waste of time. Wouldn’t recommend.

[Sunny Hill]

Dense and interesting. Takes me time to work through.

[Gene Ruppe · Rating 4 out of 5]

An informative discussion on the intent of the Founding Fathers in drafting the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights with references to the Federalist Papers with Divine Law as the authority.