Will President Trump Stand Up for the Original Declaration of Independence or Kneel to the De-emphasis of God in the Library of Congress's Revision of It?
Mr. President, what say you about whether the Declaration of Independence as approved by the Continental Congress should be published as written, including GOD and DIVINE PROVIDENCE in solid caps, or continue to be cleverly edited to de-emphasize God?
In "Librarian of Congress and Federal Court should respect America's Declaration of Independence as approved by Congress, instead of a revision de-emphasizing the importance of God" (www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/180709), I quoted John Hancock, the most prominent signer of America's Declaration of Independence, to the effect that "there is not a more distinguished Event in history of America, than the Declaration of her Independence – nor any, in all probability, will so much excite the Attention of future Ages," and therefore "it is highly proper, that the Memory of that Transaction, together with the Causes that gave Rise to it, should be preserved in the most careful Manner that can be devised."
I opined that we should "honor our history by respecting and publishing America's Declaration of Independence in the original text and format and not de-emphasize the importance of God and religion to the signers of the Declaration."
Instead of accurately publishing America's Declaration of Independence. the words GOD and DIVINE PROVIDENCE as set forth in solid caps in the Declaration were replaced, de-emphasizing the importance of GOD to the Continental Congress and the success of the American Revolution.
Last month I reported that Alvin Adams, 83, a citizen of the United States and the State of Connecticut, had sued Carla Hayden, Librarian of Congress, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Docket No. 18-cv-1338). In his complaint Adams noted that the text and format of America's Declaration of Independence had been determined by Congress on July 4, 1776 and en banc Congressional resolution on January 18, 1777 and requested that "[t]he court order, Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress to correct the Scholarly Journals of Congress, 1906 replacing the never authenticated adjective 'divine' with the Noun 'DIVINE' and ordering the full text of America's Declaration of Independence to be presented in two columns."
Mr. Abrams had been seeking the corrections since 2006.
Apparently exasperated, Mr. Abrams finally turned to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to right a historical wrong.
I agree with Mr. Abrams that the 1777 en banc Congressional resolution that "the words DIVINE, PROVIDENCE and GOD" be "fully capitalize[d] in America's Declaration of Independence" should be respected, not revised for political purposes.
Otherwise, the words "In the Year of our Lord" may be dropped from the United States Constitution to separate church and state in a manner certainly not contemplated by the overwhelming Americans who declared their independence from Great Britain and then wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The docket sheet of the case is available at www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24749773/ABRAMS_v_HAYDEN.
This month the case was abruptly dismissed and closed by Judge Reggie Walton, acting sua sponte after receiving pro se Mr. Abrams' tenth amended complaint.
Mr. Abrams enthusiastically filed amended complaint after amended complaint, but never had a summons issued and instead urged Judge Walton to recuse himself for partiality.
Judge Walton (1) denied Mr. Abrams' recusal motion without a hearing on the merits, (2) sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (3) denied what Judge Walton construed as a motion for default judgment (while acknowledging that a summons had not yet been issued), (4) denied Mr. Abrams' obviously premature motion for an order directing the Librarian of Congress to correct the Scholarly Journals of Congress as moot, and (5) ordered the case closed.
What Judge Walton did NOT do was rule that Mr. Abrams was wrong about the historical facts he alleged, the most important point to people who want history to be respected instead of rewritten for partisan political purposes.
Judge Walton stated that "the determinations of the Continental Congress...are not 'the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," as though it did not matter whether or not Mr. Abrams was right on the facts.
Where, as here, the judiciary, rightly or wrongly, does not find the true facts and history continues to be rewritten in the name of political correctness, the solution is for the President of the United States to declare the true facts and direct the Librarian of Congress to make the corrections Mr. Abrams asked Judge Walton to order the Librarian of Congress to make.
The Librarian of Congress is appointed by the President for a ten-year term and can be replaced like other officials in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government (like the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
President Trump, what say you about whether the Declaration of Independence as approved by the Continental Congress should be published as written, including GOD and DIVINE PROVIDENCE in solid caps, or continue to be cleverly edited to de-emphasize God?
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
