Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
David Barton Claims Due Process Clause Comes from Bible
By: Hrafnkell HaraldssonJul. 7th, 2011more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
David Barton, who likes to pretend he is a historian and a Constitutional expert, appeared on the misnamed Engage in Truth (it should be named Engaged in Lies) to celebrate the Fourth of July by lying about the U.S. Constitution. He is now claiming the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s “4th and the 8th Amendments” is Biblically inspired. Obviously, Barton hasn’t actually read the Constitution: it’s the Fifth, not the Fourth Amendment that he should be talking about (and of course the Fourteenth, which applies it to all the states), while habeas corpus isn’t in any of the above amendments but is found at Article One, Section 9, clause 2 (Limits of Congress), of the U.S. Constitution and states: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Barton: Now we have the Due Process Clause in the Constitution and the 4th and the 8th Amendments and that’s where you get an attorney and the right to confront your accuser and habeas corpus and all the things that are there, every one of those came out of the Bible. And it started in the Reformation with these guys pointing to the bad trials going in Europe and they said, look at the trials in the Bible, you got the trial of Naboth under Ahab and Jezebel, you got the trial of Jesus, the trial of Paul, the trial of Peter, none of the trials in Europe were being done biblically, we gotta get a system where we can do that. I mean the Declaration of Independence is about having good trials as it is about anything else and the trial clauses all came out of the Bible.
Other than sounding like an uninformed grade-schooler who is little more coherent than Sarah Palin (remember, he does not have even a college degree so he is literally an uninformed grade-schooler), does Barton have any real evidence on his side? No, not really. No more than he ever does, which is to say none at all.
In actually, the idea of due process developed out Great Britain, not Israel, from the English Magna Carta (Clause 39) of 1215 C.E.:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
The American version comes down to this:
“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The direct cause of this demand by the English nobles was the ability of the king to ride rough-shod over the rights of those self-same nobles and they were not having it. It established the principle that the king as well as his subjects was subject to the law, and it limited the king’s power to change those laws at his whim. It became, in effect, the “law of the land.” This was a big step in a world ruled by the idea of Divine Right of kings. We did not see it happen, for example, in France, where the Papacy’s hold was much stronger.
Remember too that in ancient Israel the idea of Divine Right of kings was in full-force. And when the kings were no more, the High Priests took over, ruling in the name of the king, who was considered to be YHWH himself. The United States, famously (somehow Barton seems unaware of this) is a liberal democracy.
Habeas corpus is an outgrowth of English common law, which has nothing to do with the Bible or with Christianity.
Even the Heritage Foundation had the sense not to push such nonsense. In their Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin Meese, Attorney General under President Reagan, writes that,
The Founders’ interest in protecting Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures (and in requiring particularized warrants as the subsequent Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment mandates) arises out of a trio of famous eighteenth-century cases, two from England and one from the colonies.[1]
No mention is made of any biblical antecedents. In fact, full credit is given to the English Magna Carter. The phrase “due process of law” first appeared in a 1354 statute (as Keith Jurow points out, a similar phrase, “due manner or by process” has appeared in parliament two years earlier).[2] Meese points out that by the drafting of the Bill of Rights, “at least eight state constitutions contained clauses restraining government from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property except pursuant to the law of the land.”[3]
The Eighth Amendment’s “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause derives also from English, not Jewish law – the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which as Meese notes was “redacted in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and recommended by the Virginia ratifying convention.”[4]
There is no evidence at all that the English noblemen rebelling against King John’s authority drew upon the Bible when drew any inspiration from the Bible when writing the Magna Carta, and the Founding Fathers themselves relied directly upon the English laws in writing their own. Biblical law, you might remember, was completely absent in the debates of the Constitutional Convention, the convention members did not break for a three day prayer-fast during the convention, and neither the Bible, the Ten Commandments, nor God appear in the finished document nor in the Bill of Rights.
If there is any inspiration going on at all in all this, David Barton is most definitely not its recipient. All he has to sell are stale old lies and ignorance.
[1] Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Heritage Foundation, 2005), 323-24.
[2] Keith Jurow, “Untimely Thoughts: A Reconsideration of the Origins of Due Process of Law,” The American Journal of Legal History 19 (1975), 265-279. Kurow argues (p. 279) that “The term ‘due process of law’ never played a crucial role in the development of English law. It was to chapter twenty-nine of the Magna Carta and the phrase ‘by the law of the land’ that men turned during the great crises of English liberty.”
[3] Meese (2005), 338.
[4] Meese (2005), 363.
There is so much that could be said about David Barton's epic appearance on Jon Stewart Wednesday but I ...
David Barton, WallBuilders’ resident liar and director of misinformation, is a symptom of a larger problem, ...
Given Mike Huckabee's support for historical revisionist David Barton, it is important that Americans un ...
Gary Cass’ DefendChristians.org is happy as can be: This month the Tennessee State House of Representativ ...
OneNewsNow, a division of the American Family News Network, reports that Mat Staver, dean of Falwe ...
Reynardine
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Is David Barton stupid enough to believe what he says, or does he think we are? The names of the extraordinary writs are all in Latin or in English; none in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koine. The statutory compilations of every state include the Constitution, and many print a copy of the Magna Carta, as well as including some of its provisions in their own constitutions (“To none will we sell, to none deny, justice”). None of them quote the Bible. Law dictionaries cite many phrases in Latin, Late Latin, Norman, Anglo-Norman, and some Anglo- Saxon… again, no Biblical language. Religious law was separately embodied in canon law and ecclesiastical courts, and didn’t enter into the formation of secular law in Anglo- Saxon jurisdictions, except in adding the requirement of mens rea (guilty mind) to that of actus reus (guilty act) – the difference between first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, for instance. A corollary of this provision was that a retarded person, an insane person, or a person below the age of reason could not be convicted of a crime… but this provision does not appear in the Bible. In effect, the only influence of Christianity on the law was heavily filtered through Rome. Nonetheless, Mr. Barton appears to be proceeding on the assumption that a simple lie, simply repeated often enough, will convince simple people. I hope, perhaps vainly, that most Americans are still not that simple-minded.
StJimmy
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 8:45 am
David Barton is clearly an idiot.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 8:51 am
most people do not understand that almost all of our laws come from England. Along with the Magna Carta, some of the most important documents in history are Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement. These documents still hold true today. You’ll notice in the United States we have a Bill of Rights. Where do you think that comes from? It comes from England in 1689.
An example of English law making its way to the United States comes from the Petition of Rights: The Petition’s ban on the billeting of troops is reflected in the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.
our Constitution would not be what it is without English references. The history of the struggles of the English people to survive is what gives us our rights today. Poor David Barton can say the things that he says, but absolutely none of it is true.
We do have laws such as murder. One could argue that that comes from the Bible and possibly win. But that is also a law that has been in society since well before the Bible or biblical times. Murder in any society has always been a punishable crime.
our Constitution is not exceptionalism. It is an exceptional document but it is based on documents that came before it for the most part there are certainly nuances that are explicit to the United States
and you are absolutely right, in reading the paragraph that you quote above, David Barton is like a 15-year-old kid trying to write a story. You have to keep blinking your eyes to see if you are reading what you are reading.
Reynardine
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:17 am
I wrote a lot better when I was fifteen, and the only one worth publishing was a short-short called, “The Louse” (no, it wasn’t about Mr. Barton)
Hrafnkell
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 10:52 am
You just wonder how an uneducated buffoon like this gets anybody to listen to him, unless his English is better than theirs
sendlawyersgunsandmoney
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Fine example of biblical due process is Sodom and Gemorrah.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:50 am
LOL, so true
DannyEastVillage
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 10:28 am
or these:
www.evilbible.com/Murder....
Hrafnkell
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 10:52 am
I almost sat down to look up a bunch of Biblical examples of “due process” so thank you for providing some
DannyEastVillage
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 11:06 am
it’s a great website to use on so-called religious people. spend some time on it sometime to get a good look at what a blood-thirsty bigoted bastard the Hebew god was.
I’ve long said that if you want to find out whom a person hates just ask about his or her god.
Sally
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Facts? You expect any of these ‘Biblical scholars’ to do any research or be able to back up their claims? The worst thing is that their sheep just take it all in and regurgitate it all over the web as truth from on high. Palin and Bachmann are the same…they latch onto some idiotic notion of the Bible relating to the Constitution relating to the evil Obama, and off they go. I do hope that the reasonable and educated among us far outnumber them next November, or this country will never recover.
Diane
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
King Henry the Second instituted trial by jury.
He was furious with the Catholic church that allowed clergy to only be disciplined by the church. Any clergy guilty of a crime, even murder, where immune from the law.
Diane
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
were immune, not where.
Sorry!
mathazar
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
So, who was the defense attorney in the case of the People of Rome vs Jesus of Nazareth ?
bob dobson
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“(remember, he does not have even a college degree so he is literally an uninformed grade-schooler)”
In no way do I defend Barton, but the statement I have quoted REEKS of snobbery. When people like Palin and Bachmann have degrees, it would seem obvious that having a degree doesn’t mean that you are any more informed than that uninformed grade-schooler. And, additionally, when I went to school there were actually schools that were specifically for education between grade school and college. We called them “high schools.” Look it up.
David Barton is full of… well, that stuff that isn’t Shinola. Having a degree wouldn’t change or prevent him being full of not-Shinola. May I submit exhibit A? Rand Paul.
john
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Palin got hers from University of Idaho..
Bachman, liberty university, and anal(Oral) roberts.. gee Bachman is Monica Godling on steriods..
GarColga
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
I think there’s some controversy whether Palin actually ever earned a degree!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
No one has ever seen her grades. 6 different colleges in 6 years
Anon Guest
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Great article exposing Barton.
According to Huckabee, at the Rediscover God in America conference in Iowa, Barton, that right-wing ignoramus cluck’s (or f instead of cl) bull sheet is just what America needs. (More theocratic cancer)
Huckabee said, “I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced
— at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country would be better for it.”
It is difficult to actually tell whether Huckabee was grandstanding for the base, or whether he is brain dead. “…forced–at gun point no less”? What happened to America, land of the free?
Barton manufactures and sells distorted, dark, lying, carcinogenic ugly stuff, and idiots like Huckabee promote it. Wonder if Barton envisions himself as the first ruler of the theocracy he is diligently working to create.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 7th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Huck just joined Pawlentys campaign today
majii
Jul. 8th, 2011 at 1:21 am
I’d like to ask Barton one question where crime and punishment is concerned, “What role did Beccaria play in the development of these concepts in the U.S. Constitution? Since he’s such an expert on the source(s) of law in America, surely he’d be able to answer my question without using Google. Barton and people like him disgust me and so do those who view him as any kind of historian.
JaredMithrandir
Jul. 12th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“Remember too that in ancient Israel the idea of Divine Right of kings was in full-force. And when the kings were no more, the High Priests took over, ruling in the name of the king, who was considered to be YHWH himself. The United States, famously (somehow Barton seems unaware of this) is a liberal democracy.”
I agree Barton is being very ignorant in his approach, but this statement of yours is equally Ignorant. The Bible opposes the Divine Right of Kings, the Law of Moses puts restriction on them, and one King was Killed for trying to do something only the Priest had the Authority to do.