Posted on 06/20/2019 8:02:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
But ladies....the Constitution wasn't about favoritism...it was about ESTABLISHING.
Nice precedent, we need some legal distinction between memorials and monuments.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Politically correct, anti-Christian interpretations of the Establishment Clause aside, technically speaking, Congress is the only entity that can violate that clause, by making a law respecting or prohibiting a particular establishment of religion.
But as we shall see, there are politically correct ways to effectively get around 1st Amendment (1A) prohibitions on Congress’s powers, but no less scandalous than Congress making such laws.
One reason for confusion about church and state separation is probably a consequence of corrupt, FDR era, anti-religious expression justices legislating anti-religious expression laws from the bench.
What happened is this imo. FDR’s anti-Catholic justices (eg., Anti-Catholic, Ku Klux Klan Justice Hugo Black) twisted Section 1 of 14A which expressly applies the Constitution's express privileges and immunities to the states. They twisted 14A by arguing that it applies 1A's express prohibition of certain powers to Congress to the states. This is evidenced by comparing Section 1 of the 14A with a disturbing excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"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 [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." —Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
The problem with the Court’s interpretation of 14A in context of religious expression is this. Cantwell justices seem to have “overlooked” that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had stated on more than one occasion that 14A took away no state powers.
"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. (See bottom half of first column)
"No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired . . ." —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. [emphasis added] I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
The Court's decision in support of anti-Catholic Newton Cantwell was possibly intended to carry on the work of the failed anti-sectarian (read anti-Catholic) Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, the resolution to propose that amendment to the states for ratification killed in the Senate awhile after the Civil War.
In other words, 1A's express prohibition of certain powers to Congress, particularly making laws to prohibit free religious expression, ultimately didn't stop the FDR era, anti-Catholic Supreme Court from politically “amending” the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution to do what the previous century Congress couldn't do under 1A, and wouldn't do with proposed Blaine Amendment.
Again, politically correct interpretations of 14A aside, the states still have the 10th Amendment-protected power to cultivate religious expression, such power now reasonably limited by 14A.
In fact, in stark contrast to activist Supreme Court justices arguing politically correct interpretations of 14A to legislate likewise politically correct, anti-religious expression “laws” from the bench, Congress has the specific 14A power only to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, including religious protections.
The Supreme Court had put it this way about Congress's 14A powers.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
The big problem with 14A is that corrupt, post-17th Amendment, anti-religious expression Congress is stubbornly refusing to use that power to strengthen religious expression rights, particularly when Christians are harassed by state actors, career lawmakers letting corrupt justices and judges do their dirty, unconstitutional “legislative” work for them.
Corrections, insights welcome.
The remedy for institutionally indoctrinated activist justices confused about the establishment clause…
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to do its 14A duty to make penal laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections, freedom of religious expression in this example.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
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.