Constitutional illiteracy is becoming something of a political epidemic these days, and one of the results is that some of the most important prudential decisions that face those who hold high federal office aren't even being considered by anyone. But if we read the Constitution, and take it seriously as an instrument by which the rational animal governs himself, some surprising possibilities emerge. This week I want to discuss two of them -- the real meaning of the First Amendment, and the corresponding possibilities for a constitutionally literate chief executive to restore liberty to the American people despite what the Supreme Court says.

Whenever I give a speech, I emphasize that the rights Americans cherish are proclaimed by our Declaration of Independence to be an endowment from our Creator, God. And one of the questions I most frequently then get from the press is how I would, as president, respect the constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state. My answer is always the same -- I ask to be shown where this doctrine appears in the Constitution, because I know it doesn't. Usually, the best they can do is stammer something about the First Amendment.

But the First Amendment doesn't say anything about a general separation of church and state. It reads: "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Even people who are trying to read that sentence literally often misunderstand it. It doesn't just prohibit the Congress from establishing a national religion. It entirely forbids the Congress to pass legislation that has anything to do with the establishment of religion -- for or against. The First Amendment tells the Congress that the establishment of religion is not a concern of the federal government, and that the federal government should keep its hands off of the religious practices of the people and communities of the United States.

The First Amendment thus leaves the question of establishment squarely in the hands of the state and local governments. I marvel at the tolerance of the American people for groundless illogic in the decision-making of our judges. The First Amendment was intended to make sure that states would not be subject to any uniform domination by the federal government on matters of religion. But by perversely interpreting the 14th Amendment, our judges have applied it to the states in such a way as to allow the federal courts to impose a uniform absence of religion on our people.

How can this be? The First Amendment was intended to make sure the federal government couldn't touch the religious practices of the states, and yet now it is being used as an excuse to destroy even the most minimal religious expressions at the state and local level. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this Orwellian revocation of our right to the free exercise of religion was made possible by a growing ignorance in our people of both the letter and the meaning of the Constitution.

Accordingly, a renewed understanding of these things could give rise to a refreshing "just say no" campaign to such obviously unconstitutional judicial usurpations. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the great majority of the suppression of the free exercise of religion in recent years has not actually been enforced by government, but has been based on the presumption that has somehow grown up that certain things just cannot be done. The judges -- and the liberal elites in media, academy and government -- have bluffed us into submission.

But remembering the real nature of our Constitution offers a remedy for this situation, particularly if we begin to elect leaders who understand it. A second surprise emerges if we recall what is really meant by the "checks and balances" that we all supposedly understand to be a key to our constitutional system.

Suppose that the Supreme Court of the United States decides, in a given, particular case, that an employee of the federal government cannot have the Bible on his desk at work because in the Court's view that somehow interferes with the separation of church and state -- which is, of course, a mythological concept anyway, in terms of the Constitution. So, the Supreme Court says that, and it says that's the Constitution.

The president of the United States has taken an oath to uphold, protect, defend, the Constitution of the United States. That means that he has sworn to preserve the Constitution in its integrity. Suppose now that the president considers that Supreme Court decision and decides that it has no basis in our Constitution, our heritage, or our law. Suppose that the president sees that the Supreme Court decision is actually violating the Constitution, by interfering with the free exercise of religion on the part of his federal employee.

In this circumstance, is the president obligated to carry out the decision of the Court?

First of all, the Supreme Court's judgment only applies to that particular case. We always say that the Supreme Court "struck down" this and that law. But the only thing that the Supreme Court can actually do is decide individual, particular cases. And its judgment only applies in that case. The reason we say it has struck down a law or otherwise had a general effect on our nation's laws is because of a simple and generally sound line of reasoning. We see that the Court has made its decision in a particular case, and that it will presumably rule that way in every case like it. We presume, in normal circumstances, that the judgment of the Supreme Court is the best legal judgment we will get on the question. And we presume that lower courts will follow the precedent of the Supreme Court.

But just as the Court is obliged to interpret the Constitution in a particular case because that is its job, so the president is obliged to interpret the Constitution in order to do his job, which is to carry out the law in accord with the Constitution. And the branches of the federal government are coequal. So if the president disagrees with the Court, the Court does not automatically get its way.

I believe that in respect for the Court's authority, the president must give the Court its way in the particular case it has decided. But the president does have a general power of pardon. In the example we are considering, he could pardon the employee who has been convicted of taking a Bible to work.

He could also accompany his pardon with a general statement that he will pardon every employee in a similar situation during his tenure as president, because the law forbidding Bibles at work is unconstitutional. What happens then to the Court's judgment? During his tenure as president, it is of no consequence -- it is null and void.

Wouldn't this provoke the dreaded "Constitutional Crisis?" Well, that depends on what is meant by crisis. What it would do is require that the people holding the various high offices in the federal government exert themselves and the powers of their respective offices in a political struggle to determine which account of the Constitution would prevail. If the Congress thinks that the president is irresponsible and lawless, disobeying the Court in a matter where the Constitution is clear, it must impeach him and remove him from office.

That's the way the Constitution is supposed to work. Presidents aren't supposed to roll over and play dead when our judges start to act like tyrants. They are supposed to defend the integrity of the Constitution, and the liberties of our people. The Congress isn't supposed to roll over and play dead when the president acts like a tyrant. They are supposed to impeach him and kick him out of office. And the resulting interplay of men, argument, and the powers of office, is intended to be the occasion for the people's informed judgment eventually to prevail.

We must start to elect people to these offices who will defend our liberties, defend the integrity of the Constitution, and take on the full responsibilities they are supposed to exercise as the stewards of that Constitution. I believe that both president and Congress, in recent decades, have failed us in this regard. And in doing so they have unleashed a judicial tyranny that is destroying the soundness, moral and otherwise, of our land.

It is time to fight back. We can do so by making clear that through our representatives we are going to remind the Court that they do not have the supreme authority to dictate to the entire society in vital matters concerning Constitutional integrity and liberty.

A renewed exercise of our Constitutional sovereignty as a people is vital. At stake is not merely prayer in schools and Bibles on desks. This struggle is already becoming a matter of the integrity of our most vital institutions. There are state courts right now that are poised to require us to accept homosexual marriage throughout the country. An assault is beginning on the elemental institution of our entire civilization. Are we to believe that we are defenseless against this assault, simply because despotic judges say so?

The Founders were wiser than this. They wrote a Constitution that put within the power of the representatives of the people the capacity to act on behalf of the people, so that each branch is given the authority necessary to check and restrain the tyrannical impulses of the others. That is what we will need in order to make sure that in these cases the courts do not destroy our national probity, nor undermine the virtues of our constitutional order.

In our votes, in our actions, and in the expectations we form of our elected officials, we must act again as free men. We must be confident in our own judgment when it comes to the most important things, and then willing to insist that the government that is our instrument conform to that judgment. We need to read the Constitution, and insist that our leaders do so as well -- in every branch of government. And then we need to have the stomach to support leaders who are prepared to struggle within the government to return it to constitutional integrity.