Supreme Court (Except for Justice Thomas) Gets it Wrong Again on Establishment Clause

[Irontank]

To reach the state of Kentucky's placement of the 10 Commandment in a state courthouse, the Court has to first hold that the 14th Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states (remember that it says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion")

Did the 14th Amendment make the 1st Amendment applicable against the states? Well, that's what the Supreme Court has said since 1947...but its a lie

We know its a lie because, in 1875 (only 7 years after it passed the 14th Amendment), the Congress debated adding another amendment (known as the Blaine Amendment) that read:

No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion....

The proposed amendment passed the House and was barely defeated in the Senate. More important than the fact that the proposed amendment failed is the fact that no one in Congress, during the debates over the Blaine Amendment, ever stated that the proposed amendment would have been unnecessary because they just made the 1st Amendment applicable to the states 7 years earlier. Had they really intended to make the 1st Amendment applicable, don't you think someone would have mentioned it? After all, many members of the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were serving in the Congress that debated the Blaine Amendment.

Senator Frederick Frelinghuysen, one of the sponsors of the Blaine Amendment, made the following statement in Congress during the Blaine Amendment debates:

I call the attention of the Senate to the alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution provides that - "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States...Thus the article, as amended by the Senate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the estabishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
4 CONG REC 5561 (Aug. 14, 1876, Statement of Sen. Frelighuysen)

If, in 1876, the 14th Amendment had not made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states (according the the very congressman who passed the 14th Amendment), how did the Supreme Court magically "interpret" it to do so 75 years later>?

I've not read the opinion, but only Clarence Thomas has previously noted that the Establishment Clause cannot logically or historically be applied against the states...I expect he will note that again in his dissent in the Kentucky case

[RockinRight]

Have I mentioned I love Clarence Thomas? Not in a gay way, mind you, but this man is probably the most true patriot and by far smartest guy on the court...followed by Scalia and Rhenquist some distance behind...

[soundandvision]

Good stuff.. can't wait to read Thomas' dissent. I've said here previously (many times) that Thomas is the only person for Chief, he's the best justice we have. (Sorry Scalia fans.. I'm a Thomas man).

[freekitty]

What they are saying is welcome to government rule. America is not America. How dare these jerks rule us and for us.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

[SittinYonder]

FWIW re. 14th

[E Rocc]

It should be noted that virtually all legal experts now agree to the concept that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states from violating the Bill of Rights. It should also be considered that if this were not the case, an Amendment making this explicit would pass easily.

-Eric

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The only freedom alive and well in America is pervert freedom.

[BenLurkin]

Justice Thomas says in his dissent:

"When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."

[Tired of Taxes]

If, in 1876, the 14th Amendment had not made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states (according the the very congressman who passed the 14th Amendment), how did the Supreme Court magically "interpret" it to do so 75 years later?

If Congress and the state has in some way become entangled, then the First Amendment should apply.

For example, public schools do receive federal funding. Congress/the fed gov't has inserted itself into public schools.

The question is: In what way is Congress/the federal gov't involved in state courthouses? That's not a rhetorical question, just a question.

[mlc9852]

I love Clarence Thomas. He obviously understands the Constitution better than the rest.

[Iconoclast2]

In a Free Republic, people think for themselves, and can resist "experts" who are wrong. Appeals to "experts" are what I usually see from enemies of a Free Republic. That being said, you are correct that most "experts" were taught the doctrine of incorporation in law school and never questioned it.

[muawiyah]

None of which is the real issue here.

We all know that there's been a wave of anti-semitism working its way through the professional leftwing both here and in Europe.

It shouldn't surprise anyone at all that the Supreme Court, dominated by leftwing extremists, should now rule that the Law of Moses, the very core of classical Judaism, should be relegated to the courthouse lawn, and prohibited entry into the court.

The next ruling from this same court might well ban the Jews themselves from entering the courts.

This is the exact same pattern formal, government enforced anti-semitism took in Germany in the 1930s.

[RightWhale]

They are all Statists.

[Tired of Taxes]

Didn't know that. There's something new to learn here everyday.

To All: More on the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

[GrandEagle]

Humm....
OK, as I understand it, an individual posting something on the wall of a court room makes it a law that has been passed by the Congress. When was THAT amendment passed? Oh, wait a minute, maybe it has been posted on a wall somewhere in a court room. That makes the legislative job much cheaper, Now we can send home all the Senators and Representatives. The Oligarchy rules, Our beloved Republic is dead.

GE

[rwfromkansas]

Your point?

It was not the original intent. I don't care what the courts say now.

[rockrr]

I've been going about this all wrong...

I was one of those "protect the sanctity of the union" support the "strict constructionists" type of great unwashed sorts.

Maybe I should give in to the siren song and go over to the dark side.

My first quest as a "constitution as a living document" type of "thinker" will be to abolish the Supreme Court as an anachronism........


(Gee, I'm "feeeeeeling" better already!)

[RayStacy]

FABULOUS research! This debate was recently had on this website, and I wish I had had this nugget back then. Another reason to wonder if the 14th really has anything to do with the BOR -- nowhere in the 14th amend is the BOR even mentioned.

[rwfromkansas]

Oh, and by the way, even if it were made applicable to the states, the First Amendment would NOT have made the Ten Commandments unconstitutional.

We did much worse in the early part of our country that was upheld by the courts.

1) paying for Bibles
2) paying missionaries and sending them with govt. blessing to the Indians....and using public money to pay for churches on Indian land
3) having church in the capitol building and original SCOTUS building....with govt. officials often in attendance, a clear endorsement of the services.
4) Strongly endorsed and sometimes required church attendance by the U.S. military, even during the Civil War pushed by Lincoln himself.