Some lawmakers oppose Christmas bill

Three Bay Area House members were among nine Democrats who voted against a Republican-sponsored resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith."

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said she had opposed the bill Tuesday because using Christianity for political purposes is an affront to Christmas.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, invoked "Grinch" in saying the president's impending veto of a children's health insurance plan had him feeling anything but holiday cheer.

And Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, said the holiday season "is a time to celebrate all religions and faiths," with Congress doing no more than wishing everyone good tidings.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, last week introduced HR847, which states that the House recognizes "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world ... expresses continued support for Christians ... acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith."

The bill further "acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization ... rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians ... and expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world."

The bill passed 372-9, with 10 other lawmakers -- including one Republican -- voting "present."

This bill seems to be a direct reaction to HR635, which passed 376-0 in October, recognizing the Muslim holiday of Ramadan and stating that the House "recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world ... expresses friendship and support for Muslims ... acknowledges the onset of Ramadan ... and conveys its respect to Muslims ... rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims ... commends Muslims who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror."

Woolsey and Stark voted in favor of that resolution; King was among 41 Republicans and one Democrat who had voted "present."

"It is disturbing that a small number of representatives support Ramadan and Islam but not Christmas and Christianity," Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said in a news release.

The Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based nonprofit conservative litigation, education and policy group, is waging a "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign."

"As a person of faith, I take the values and spirit of Christmas very seriously," Lee said Wednesday.

"But this resolution is an affront to the fundamental belief in the separation of church and state. To use Christmas to advance a political point, as this resolution does, is extremely cynical and contrary to the spirit of Christmas."

Stark, chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, tied his opposition to King's bill to the president's impending veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, dubbed SCHIP.

"I thought it was inappropriate to celebrate Christmas the day before President Bush was going to behave like the Grinch by vetoing legislation that would have provided health care to 10 million children. The veto just didn't put me in the Christmas spirit."

Bush on Wednesday followed through with his threat to veto for the second time a version of SCHIP.

Woolsey, explaining her vote against King's Christmas measure, said "The holiday season is a time to celebrate all religions and faiths and embrace their individual ceremonies and festivities.

"I believe that it is up to individuals, along with their families and communities, to celebrate their faith in whatever unique way they observe, and that the Congress' role should be to wish them all a happy holiday and a happy new year."

Woolsey's spokesman, Chris Shields, offered no comment on why Woolsey had voted for the Ramadan/Islam resolution in October but against the Christmas/Christian resolution Tuesday.

King in 2005 led opposition that ultimately defeated Lee's bill to rename the post office at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley in honor of longtime civil rights activist and former City Councilwoman Maudelle Shirek.

King had cited Shirek's support of convicted police killer Mumia Abu Jamal and her "affiliation with the Communist Party" -- namely, her sponsorship of a Marxist library. Lee had responded that Shirek's community service deserved recognition, and that King's opposition was "shameful."

This post will attempt to explain how FDR's establishment of constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs led to situations where our lawmakers bicker over religious expression issues as evidenced by this thread.

The 10th A. stood in the way of FDR's establishment of constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs like Social Security.

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.

But instead of rallying the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add SS and other New Deal federal programs to Sec. 8 of Article I, FDR essentially talked the Supreme Court into ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states. It's almost as if FDR did not understand the constitutional process. Corrupt FDR era justices later used FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unconstitutionally limit our 10th A. protected religious freedoms. More specifically...

Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

And after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent John Bingham's ideas about the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR appointed justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation. Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.

"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
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"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

So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.

Are we having fun yet? :^)

As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, overturned in 1943, to my knowledge, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs are the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. In fact, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).

As another side note, 10th A. protected state powers are now limited by the honest interpretation of Sections 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment.

Abraham Lincoln warned us about corrupt lawmakers and 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.

The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the major problem of widespread federal government corruption, particularly where the ignoring of 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues is concerned. The people need to quit sitting on their hand and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.

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.