Maryland holds the unique and ad-
mirable distinction of having been the
State whose early history most directly
effected, and whose citizenry was most
directly affected by, the First Amend-
ment's grant of religious liberty. With
the Supreme Court increasingly called
upon to interpret the Establishment
Clause, and with the task of drawing a
new state constitution at hand, the time
is appropriate for tracing Maryland's
contribution to the cause of toleration
and the principle of church-state sepa-
ration.
The validity of an historical approach
has long been acknowledged by both
the textwriters and the courts. As early
as 1819, the Supreme Court endorsed
the wisdom of looking to the views of
the Founding Fathers in interpreting the
Constitution.2 In 1872 the Court noted
the importance of observing "the history
of the times" surrounding the adoption
of constitutional amendments.3 The
special propriety of an historical analy-
sis for the First Amendment has likewise
been evident. The edict that "Congress
shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion, or prohibiting the
1 This article was prepared for the Com-
mission by Kenneth L. Lasson, a research
assistant for the Commission and at present
Assistant to the Dean at the University of
Maryland School of Law; B.A., 1963, The
Johns Hopkins University; LL.B., 1966, Uni-
versity of Maryland School of Law; M.A.,
1967, The Johns Hopkins University.
2McCulIoch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4
Wheat.) 316, 406 (1819).
3 Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16
Wall.) 36, 67 (1872).
|
free exercise thereof" has proved to be
obscure in meaning; determination of
the scope of the First Amendment's re-
ligion clauses requires a determination
of the intent of the First Congress, as
well as the intent of the citizens of the
states that ratified the amendment.4 In
an 1878 decision the Supreme Court
observed that the word "religion" was
not defined by the Constitution and
added: "We must go elsewhere, there-
fore, to ascertain its meaning, and no-
where more appropriately, we think,
than to the history of the times in which
the provision was adopted."5 Again, in
a 1947 case involving religion, the Court
concerned itself with the "conditions
and practices which they [the Founding
Fathers] fervently wished to stamp out
in order to preserve liberty for them-
selves and for their posterity." Justice
Black concluded that, "It is not inappro-
priate to review the background and
environment of the period in which the
constitutional language [establishment
of religion] was fashioned and
adopted."6
Although the First Amendment was
a reflection on the situation in most of
the colonies of early America, Mary-
land's role was of paramount signifi-
cance. Maryland stood out among all
the original states as the real champion
4 C. antieau, A. downey & E. roberts,
freedom from federal establishment
vii, (1963).
5 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145,
162 (1878).
6 Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8
(1947) ; Horace Mann League v. Bd. of Pub.
Works, 242 Md. 645, 220 A.2d 51, 55-60
(1966).
15
|
