U.S. Court upholds 10 Commandments on public land [U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited precedent

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A nearly 50-year-old monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments does not violate the Constitution just because it sits nearly alone on public grounds in a Washington city, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The division between church and state is a core principle of American democracy, but courts have long struggled to find exactly where the dividing line falls.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited precedent rulings in this latest case, which involves a 6-foot-tall (1.8-meter-tall) granite monument near the Old City Hall in Everett, Washington, about 25 miles north of Seattle.

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. "Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.

She noted that the Everett monument does not have nearby benches or evening lighting and is surrounded by trees and that impair its viewing. Such a setting prevents a visitor from concluding that the monument has been placed in a sacred space on public grounds.

The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.

I'm adding Reuters to the list of organizations, mostly news agencies, that are passing along information relating to major perversions of our constitutional freedoms, essentially without recognizing it as such.

AP
Herald Sun
U.S.News
Patriot Post
Washington Post
Heritage Foundation
Wikipedia
Star-Tribune (Minnesota)
Reuters
Social Security

The remainder of this post tells how FDR's 10th-A. ignoring establishment of his New Deal federal spending programs arguably led to constitutionally baseless concerns for government associated religious monuments as evidenced by this 10 Commandments controversy .

To begin with, regardless of Justice Black's politically correct interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion, the Founders had reserved government power to address religion to the states, power which they still have today even if most people don't understand this. I'll go into more detail about Justice Black's shenanigans shortly.

Given that state power to address religious issues is protected by the 10th Amendment, the key question to ask concerning issues like the constitutionality of the public 10 Commandments monument is what happened to the 10th Amendment?

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.

Sadly, FDR unwittingly gave the federal government the politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. when he established his New Deal federal spending programs. This came about because, regardless of FDR's oath to defend the Constitution, his ideas actually showed that he did not understand the Constitution, particularly the Founder's requirement that all federal powers be enumerated in the Constitution.

Enumerated powers are not only smart because they limit the powers of the federal government, but also because they limit federal government spending associated with such powers, a major stumbling block for FDR and his New Deal programs.

To do things rights according to the Constitution, FDR needed to rally the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add his federal spending programs, such as Social Security, to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment. Instead, FDR made public his unpopular plan to try to stack the Supreme Court to establish his programs, the Constitution be damned. Again, FDR was a constitutional flunky.

And if FDR's disregard for state powers wasn't enough, constitutional flunky justices (FDR / Democrat sympathizers) would ultimately use FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to further erode 10th A. protected state powers. And if you want some examples...

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

Given Roberts' ignoring of 10th A. protected state powers in the Cantwell opinion, it's no wonder that Roberts' swing vote often went against the states when the Court decided cases which tested the constitutionality of FDR's New Deal programs like Social Security.

In fact, given that Social Security's web site mentions Roberts' swing votes without mentioning Roberts' politically correct ignoring of the 10th A., I've added Social Security to the list of constitutionally ignorant organizations, organizations who should know better about the Constitution and its history. Search for "a switch in time" on this page (<-click).

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 nominated by FDR, 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, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs seem to be the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. So it's really no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).

As I've said elsewhere, the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread corruption in the federal government, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers of the states are being ignored, a consequence of FDR's dirty politics. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.

Finally, how can the free press help to protect our constitutional freedoms if the press is ignorant of the Constitution and its history? Again, this ignorance is evidenced by Reuters' overlooking that c&s separation issues concerning this public 10 Commandments monument are unfounded.

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.