WAGNER: Alberta's constitutional dilemma... no God, no rights

As progress is made toward holding a referendum on Alberta independence, people naturally begin to consider what their new country might look like. Among the most important questions are what kind of constitution will the Republic of Alberta (or Commonwealth of Alberta) adopt and what place in it will there be for God?A constitution is the fundamental law of a political community, so it is of vital importance. Adopting a defective constitution from the outset would inevitably lead to all sorts of problems in the governance of the new country. The noble experiment of an independent Alberta would then fail.Among the current nations of the world, the American constitution is held in high esteem by many people, including some who favour Alberta independence. We could do much worse than using the US Constitution as an initial guide for writing an Alberta constitution..With that in mind, it is important to understand some of the philosophical principles underlying the US system.A constitution must establish the structure and role of government as well as delineate the relationship of citizens to their government. In a federal system like the US and Canada, the constitution assigns certain responsibilities and jurisdictions to the federal government and state or provincial governments.An independent Alberta probably will not need a federal system with two levels of government. Were other Western provinces later to join with Alberta, that might change..Nevertheless, with the new Alberta constitution, it will be essential to outline the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. If defending the freedom of individuals from the government is a high priority — as it should be — then limiting government and restricting its power will be a vital function of the constitution.The US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the two major components of their respective constitutions that spell out individual rights. Generally speaking, protections in the Bill of Rights provide stronger defences for individuals from the government than the Charter, certainly where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are concerned. It is likely that many Alberta independence supporters would prefer the more robust protections of the Bill of Rights over the weaker protections of the Charter of Rights.As American political scientists Thomas L. Krannawitter and Daniel C. Palm write in their 2005 book, A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics, discussions of individual rights in the context of the American constitution cannot avoid the issue of religion. The US Declaration of Independence (which provides the philosophical backdrop to the US Constitution) says all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” If there is no Creator, then obviously there cannot be “unalienable Rights.”More to the point they write, “The distinction between a government of limited powers, versus one of unlimited powers, rests on the source of rights. If men are endowed with rights from God, then the power of government ought to be commensurate with its purpose, which is limited to the protection of those God-given rights. If rights come from government, on the other hand, then any limitation on government power is a limitation on rights.”.In other words, if Albertans want strong protections for individual rights within their new constitution, they must be willing to accept a constitutional role for God. No God, no meaningful individual rights.And not just any God, either. There is only one God who provides a fundamental basis for individual rights, and He’s not Zeus or Apollo, or a whole host of other deities.As Krannawitter and Palm point out, the principles of the American Founding “are tied intimately and necessarily to the Judeo-Christian conception of human beings and their relation to God.”This means that an independent Alberta will need to explicitly incorporate a role for the Judeo-Christian God in its constitution should it wish to provide genuine protections for individual rights and liberties. .Doing so will not violate the principle of the separation of church and state because the church does not acquire any powers or perform any tasks or functions in this arrangement. It simply acknowledges that there is a transcendental authority above the state from Whom we receive our rights as individuals. Our rights are not granted by the state and cannot be withdrawn by the state.Leaving the Judeo-Christian God out of Alberta’s constitution would not create greater room for pluralism and freedom. Instead, it would simply make the state the unrivalled authority over society and the exclusive source of individual rights. In such a case the rights of individuals would be always at the mercy of government officials.The state giveth and the state taketh away; blessed be the name of the state.In short, the constitution of an independent Alberta must acknowledge God as the source of individual rights, otherwise the new country may soon become worse than the one it left.A purely secular constitution would be a recipe for tyranny.