Prayer in Indiana? It's all USA liberties!

December 29 2004 | Andrew Horning

[andrewhorning]

I wonder what would happen if I were to march into Governor Daniels' office and declare, "Pack your stuff and git, Mich; I'm the Governor now." We all know what should happen. He should use his executive power to have me dragged away. But judging from recent events, I wonder if he'd instead say, "I just think it's regrettable," and shuffle out of his office, mumbling something about "activist citizens?" In claiming that public prayers can't mention Jesus Christ, Federal District Court Judge David Hamilton invoked the so-called "establishment clause" in the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. In response, our Governor said "I just think it's regrettable," and did nothing to stop Hamilton's words from passing for law. But read the clause yourself. The whole amendment, which comprises all there is about the "separation of church and state" (this phrase isn't in the constitution), is only a single, 45-word sentence. And this sentence lists our five best-known freedoms under the operative phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting..." Here is the whole amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." There you have it. Five freedoms separated by the words, "or" and "and." Lose one and lose them all. Maybe you don’t want the freedom of religion; but what about the others? The First Amendment clearly and completely forbids any federal authority in matters of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and to protest to the highest authorities. That's because if Congress can make no law respecting these freedoms, then nobody can (U.S. Constitution, Article I). And there can be no execution or judgment of a law that can't legally exist (articles II and III, amendments IX and X). Therefore, the 1st Amendment is a total ban, kibosh, nix and prohibition on any federal power in these five freedoms. Judge Hamilton spoke illegally. Yet he also spoke without authority. It is those in the Executive or Legislative branches who treat Hamilton's words as law, and who use their offices to enforce it, who are committing the real crime. You see, the law that our public officials swear to uphold and defend actually makes the judiciary "...beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments in power." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78). Governor Daniels, George Bush, our entire federal and state legislatures have the authority to defend and enforce our freedoms. And yet they do not. They aggressively take them away. We have lost the Rule of Law, property ownership and free market economics that made this nation great. We've lost the liberties that made us prosperous. We've lost everything that worked and replaced it with the ages-old authoritarian default. If there are any patriots out there who wish to join me in protesting the loss of USA government and the destruction of our society (petition the government for a redress of grievances), please write to me at andrewhorning@hotmail.com Liberty or Bust,

Andrew Horning The Freedom Farm Freedom, IN 47431

[Personal Responsibility]

1) You are right
2) Paragraphs are your friend :)

[ndt]

paragraphs are you friend.

[ndt]

you = your

and you beat me :)

[ndt]

The judge could not have ruled any other way. The Supreme Court has interpreted the "Congress shall make no law respecting" clause. For a lower court to rule against the Supreme Court would be judicial activism.

The S.C. has spoken on the issue, whether you like it or not, these cases must be judged against the Lemon Test.

The only way to change it would be for the S.C. to overrule their previous ruling (not likely) or for congress to amend the constitution (not likely, but more likely that the first)

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

If there were a separation between church and state then what gives the state the right to even render a decision?The state itself has violated the first amendment by EVEN MAKING A DECISION!Separation would be total and complete.

[ndt]

"The judge could not have ruled any other way."

excuse me, my brain is a bit foggy after the nap.

shoud be "Judges can not rule any other way."

[ndt]

"You see, the law that our public officials swear to uphold and defend actually makes the judiciary "...beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments in power."

I love this quote. It is a perfect example of quote mining and attempt to make it mean exactly the opposite of what was said. Here is the full quote.

"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. "

Alexander Hamilton is arguing that the judiciary is incapable of the violations you are accusing it of and that "all possible care" must be taken to defend the courts powers.

[Blzbba]

All I know is that, if a Muslim ever opened a public prayer with "All Praise to Allah", the outrage from those supporting the mention of Jesus in public prayer would be deafening.

I also know that I'd vomit if I heard "Praise to Allah".