Mr. Lee accuses me of "missing the point" when I clarified the Constitution does not prohibit a private citizen preferring a "godly society." However, his claim that our group needs to be educated on the constitutional prohibition of religious tests was (in his own letter) based upon the remark of a private citizen that our nation should return to "godly principles." If his argument has nothing to do with private preferences then why did he support it by citing a private preference? If his issue is with establishment of religion by government then he should offer evidence that our group is working toward such a goal rather than relying on straw-man arguments. He has twice written this paper to remind us that government cannot establish religion, so I can only conclude that he believes or would like others to believe that The Founders Alliance supports theocracy; yet, he then accuses us of being anarchists. Theocratic anarchists? He notes a primary motivation for the Constitution was to "regulate" commerce, but again ignores historical context. The convention was called partly to stop interstate trade wars. The power granted was to be used as a restraint on the states, forbidding them from setting trade barriers between them; in other words, essentially guaranteeing a free market. This is abundantly clear in the Federalists 22, 42, 44 and 56 as well as 150 years of Supreme Court rulings prior to Wicker v. Filburn, wherein the court insanely decided that a man could be fined and ordered to destroy his personal wheat harvest if Congress so desired. A history of the Commerce Clause and the American free market is available at TheFoundersAlliance.org. No one need take my word for it, see what the authors of the Constitution and 150 years of Supreme Court precedent said.

Jessica Hughes, Lufkin