Posted on 08/26/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Amendment10
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
1st 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.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
No offense meant but how long did you lurk before signing up to think this teaches FReepers anything?
I've never seen that specific quote posted before. It does show how Hugo Black was an ideologue who did not scruple to quote Jefferson out of context.
The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is where the federal courts claim to find the power.
I can't remember the last Fourteenth amendment case that had anything to do with it's intent. "Brown", I guess.
Welcome to FR.
You really ought to quote Jefferson's passage if you're going to talk about it:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Now, your point is well taken, that the U.S. Constitution speaks only about the limits on the powers of the federal government, and therefore does not prohibit any state from connecting church and state -- indeed early American history is filled with examples of religion-based states.
So I disagree that the Supreme Court misinterpreted Jefferson's statement. What happened, in fact, was that the 14th Amendment opened the door for an override of the limits on the powers of the federal government, as mrsmith correctly points out. It didn't misinterpret TJ, it ignored him (and the 10th Amendment).
Welcome to Free Republic. Those of us who study and revere the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, will gladly engage you in all the debate you care to join. Your handle suggests you're looking forward to it too.
Welcome to FR
I have always thought it an interesting irony that the first time the Supreme Court referenced this metaphor created in the Danbury letter was in defense of marriage against polygamy in the Utah territories.
The court in Reynolds ruled in 1878 that the wall protected the American tradition of marriage.
I agree that the wall metaphor is bad law and bad interpretation of the religion clauses of the first amendment.
Except for the "swords" part!
<grin>
No offence, but I'm happy that I evidently won't be the only undiplomatic poster in FR.
To answer your question, I posted 10 minutes after stumbling on FR after years of knock-down drag out discussions of the issue in other message boards. I posted because my FR keyword search returned an anemic total of five posts relating to the issue. I probaby should have tried more keywords.
I predict that my participation in FR is going to be short-lived anyway. This is because I have found it frustrating to try to address the historical material concerning the Court's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in length limited posts. In fact, I had to rip out much of my first post to get things to fit. And it's probaby time to wrap up this post and start again.
Welcome to FR; thanks for the post, I'm sure most here will agree.
There's a "little bit" of material to discuss concerning the Court's misrepresentation of Jefferson so I'm claustrophobic in these length-limited posts. Please allow me to be grouchy and bear with me with a religion-specific Jefferson example of the 10th A. protected powers of the states.
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
Interesting. There was recently a federal case - can't recall the name or the circuit, I think it was a circuit case - in which the court said that the "wall of separation" is a misnomer and there was never such an intent in the Constitution. It was a "Ten Commandments in a public building" case which the ACLU lost, if I recall correctly.
The people have forgotten that the states had the power to address religious issues before they established the federal government and its Constitution. The Founders had shrewdly reserved this power uniquely to the states via the 1st and 10th Amendmets as evidenced by the Jefferson extracts that I have already posted. Here is another Jefferson extract which emphasizes that government power to legislate religion was reserved uniquely to the states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
Crooked Justices legislating a special-interest, anti-religous expression agenda from the bench twisted the honest interpretation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion as much as they twisted the honest interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion.
The smoking gun with respect to the Court's dirty work in the Cantwell and Everson opinions is to note that neither of these opinions reference the 10th Amendment power of the states to legislate religion in any way. Justices who evidently didn't take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously seemingly regarded the religious powers aspect of the 10th Amendment as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to in these opinions with respect to pushing their unconstitutional agenda of absolute c&s separation.
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8
Thank you for the welcome.
Please forgive me for being grouchier than usual because of the tone of some of the replies I've gotten so far.
Also, I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.
"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
See how "government.... composing official prayers" has been perverted by the athiests of the ACLU and their Democrat brethren into the sick attack on American tradition and values (and even the Boy Scouts!) that we see today? Kids are being sent home for wearing crucixes; honors graduates are being told they are not allowed to make religious references in their graduation speeches; high school football players are told not to huddle in a pre-game prayer; decades-old public monuments are suddenly ruled unacceptable and ordered removed. Etc.
It's plain sick.
I don't know what you mean by "limited length posts" but this thread will continue for as long as people stay interested and offer responses or post new information, links, etc. In any event, all threads are archived and remain available to freepers.
This is a good topic, and it is one which has been discussed often (and passionately) here at Free Republic for years. By the way, as far as I can tell the vast majority of freepers would love to see the athiest Democrat scumbags of the ACLU thoroughly disavowed and defunded by Congress.
I cannot believe your comment about the SCOTUS determining intent! :^( Maybe you haven't read my other posts yet.
Regardless what Justice Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation," I've posted three Jefferson extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the power of the states to address religious issues in some way. In fact, two of the extracts reference how the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments.
So I don't know where you're coming from with respect to defending the USSC's determination of the intentions of the Founders given they obviously got the wires crossed big time with Jefferson.
In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution.
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803. http://tinyurl.com/qf2vw
Once it was forgotten that the intent of the 14th Amendment was pretty narrow: namely the protection of the rights of Africian-Americans, the courts began to invest the language with all sorts of other meanins. For instance, the restriction of the power of the states to regulate corporations by regarding them as "persons." Then with the Great War came the process of "nationalizing" the Bill of Rights and applying them to the States, even though most States, if not all, already had such bills. Logically, the hold of the states over relgious bodies ought to have been loosened, except that the intent of the courts became the restriction of religious freedom, since that freedom was regarded as dangerous as political dissent. I find it ironical that many American liberals regard Christianity, at least in its traditional form, as seditious as the Chinese government does. If they could they would establish a federal agency to govern the several churches and, in a sense, the IRS serves that function.
How does one stay away....
The more serious problem goes to the theoretical balance of powers. None such exist. The courts are the supreme authority in the government. The Executive and the Judicial branches will never make the Constitutional claim that they are not under the authority of the SCOTUS. There is not the political will to opposed the dictatorial, absolute authority of the courts.
In practice we are not a republic. We are an oligarchy. The Constitution specifically forbids one granch of government from assuming absolute authority. That is precisely what the SCOTUS has done, unopposed.
"So I disagree that the Supreme Court misinterpreted Jefferson's statement. What happened, in fact, was that the 14th Amendment opened the door for an override of the limits on the powers of the federal government, as mrsmith correctly points out. It didn't misinterpret TJ, it ignored him (and the 10th Amendment)."
Where did you get the idea that Justices who swear to defend the Constitution can simply ignore amendments on a whim? As I posted elsewhere, Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803. http://tinyurl.com/qf2vw
"Welcome to Free Republic. Those of us who study and revere the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, will gladly engage you in all the debate you care to join. Your handle suggests you're looking forward to it too."
What I've seen being revered so far is politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretations of the Constitution. So I'm sorry to say that so far I have wondered if FR is a bunch high schoolers. And I'm sure that everybody is likewise wondering what grade school I attend.
I used to reference the Reynolds opinion in conjunction with the Everson opinion since both opinions completely ignore the 10th Amendment. But Reynolds has no reference to the 10th Amendment protected power of the states probably because Utah wasn't a state at the time.
Also, consider that in Justice Black's fervor to use Jefferson's words to help justify Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, Black seems to have overlooked that Jefferson never stressed, to my knowledge, a connection between the establishment clause and the "wall of separation".
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947. http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8
Again, contrary to Justice Black's "profound insight" into Jefferson's "wall of separation" and the establishment clause, we've got two historical extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the unique, 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.
The problem, in my "humble" opinion, is that the people are ignorant of both the Constitution and how their government is supposed to work.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
As a consequence of widespread constitutional and government ignorance, anti-religious expression judges are walking all over our religious freedoms. After all, when was the last time that you heard of a judge who took the 10th A. powers of the states to address religious issues into consideration before booting Intelligent Design out of the school building? Indeed, judges who want to protect our religious freedoms may be unaware that Jefferson acknowledged the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues.
The bottom line is that the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about our religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
*Bump* for later reading
You don't have to leave, honest. You do have to get a tough skin to hang around here though.
I don't understand what you mean by an amendment that states what my goals are.
Also, you have evidently chosen to ignore, and I've seen this many times before, that regardless what Justice Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation" that Jefferson had actually acknowledged that the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to legislate religion uniquely to the state governments. But this is not surprising if you are aware that the states had this power long before they established the federal government and its Constitution.
As I've stated elsewhere, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
Article 52.
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
I don't know how long you lurked on FR before signing up yesterday, but surely you realize that this forum is not noted for political correctness, and while we have our share of non-religious atheists, we have damn few folks who are actively anti-religious.
As to the level of intellectual sophistication here, my observation is that it runs the gamut from profoundly wise to profoundly stupid, often within the same thread. That's one of the things that keeps us cranking here -- there's something for everybody. We try to avoid personal attacks, so it's not likely you'll get called out for being in grade school. ;-)
Which is to say, this is a conservative forum, but don't expect folks here to necessarily agree with you. This is not an echo chamber like DU (most of the time, anyway).
FR does not length-limit, to my knowledge -- I've seen pages and pages of material included in individual comments, as well as very lengthy posts, as long as the source doesn't require severe excerpting (in which case that's not FR's doing). So unless you're trying to include the NYC phone book, I think you'll do okay. Granted, there might be tricks to accomplishing those long posts that aren't obvious; I don't think I've stressed the system myself before so I haven't run into a problem and had to solve it.
That was ACLU v Mercer in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. And yes the ACLU lost - big time. In addition, in its decision the Court derided and insulted the ACLU probably as much as legally ethical (unlike that Moonbat in Mich). It was a major smackdown. Anyway here is the salient part of the decision.
The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.IMO this was s a HUGH victory for the good guys. The problem was that this decision came down right before Christmas on Dec 20, 2005. And at that time 'we' were all caught up in the 'War on Christmas', so this got little attention.
ACLU v Mercer County, Ky (NOTE its PDF)
And excuse the interruption :-)
The Constitution makes no reference to a deity or Christ--it says "We the people..." not anything about 'divine law'.
The notion that religion can be established by states is just nuts. Could Texas become an officially Baptist state or Connecticut an officially Catholic state? The idea is ludicrous. The right to freedom of religious conscience and governments on all levels that are neutral about religion is fundamental to Americanism, and cannot be decided by priests or preachers who manage to capture the power of government depending on which state you live it.
Thanks for the reminder - I'd forgotten the name of the case - and I agree it was a HUGE smackdown for the ACLU. Is the 6th Circuit the one which will hear the appeal of that Michigan moonbat judge's decision on the NSA terrorist wiretapping case?
Actually YES. The 6th covers MI, OH, KY TN.
So given the 6th's general 'disdain' for the ACLU's antics this may not even go to SCOTUS.
I have the Mercer case bookmarked. Sometimes when I feel down I go back and read it to cheer me up :-)
I just re-read it thanks to the link you provided. I really like the part where the court essentially says the ACLU isn't the "reasonable person" used as a standard and is, basically, an "eggshell plaintiff." BWAHAHAHA! Love it.
If constitution-twisting secularists think that they have the license to force Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a private letter into the establishment clause then they cannot complain if Christians find Jefferson's "Nature's God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence in the 10th Amendment. Indeed, Jefferson noted that the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
1st 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.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
No, the 10th Amendment doesn't mention any specific government power.
You have nonetheless repeatedly ignored that despite the fact that the madman Justice Black used Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause that Jefferson had noted that the Founding Fathers had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
1st 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.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The bottom line is that Justice Black probably couldn't have picked a worse person to quote to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause. Justice Black outright ignored Jefferson's "secret formulas" for interpreting the Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
There is no debate about the so-called constitutional principal of absolute c&s separation. After all, Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, made it clear that the states uniquely have the power to address religious issues.
What has happened is that anti-religious expression special interest groups long ago failed to wrap Congress around their fingers with respect to making laws that reflected their selfish concerns. So selfish interest groups bypassed Congress by getting their members appointed as Supreme Court justices. Special interest factions were then able force their anti-religious expression ideas into the laws that Congress makes, Congress be damned.
The reason that Supreme Court anti-religious expression shenanigans have been going on for so long is that the people are ignorant of both their Constitution and how their government works.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
Anti-religious expression judges who don't take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously are taking advantage of widespread constitutional ignorance by walking all over our religious freedoms.
As I have stated elsewhere, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
His letter to the dude in Danbury assuring that there would be no national religion has certainly been misread by our intellectual bettors (sarc) on the Godless left.
> ...I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.
Thank you. Initial posts are limited and I wrongly presumed this to be the rule for the entire message board. This rattled a skeleton for me because I have participated in limited length message boards and they don't work for me.
If you explain why you posted from the Russian Constitution then perhaps I can comment.
Thank you for the encouragement.
My concern was length-limited posts. But the limits evidently apply only to the initial post.
It's not the Russian constitution -- it's the Soviet Communist constitution. It's the one the Democrats follow scruputiously. Go look at it. The Democrats follow it point by point. The government must guarantee the right to housing, the right to a job, the right to rest and leisure, the right to health care, and citizens are obliged to protect nature, etc. "Separation of church and state" is word-for-word straight out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.