Posted on 12/02/2016 12:09:22 PM PST by Roman_War_Criminal
Historical references about James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Justice John Marshall and John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), all indicate that the Founding States had decided that the states are not obligated to respect the Bill of Right’s prohibitions on certain federal government powers, the Establishment Clause an example.
In fact, using the “government” powers prohibited by the 1st Amendment (1A) as an example, please consider the following.
The real Thomas Jefferson, as opposed the “atheist” Jefferson fabricated by FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices, had indicated that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that they had reserved uniquely for themselves the powers to regulate 1A personal protections for example, regardless that they had prohibited such powers to the feds altogether.
“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: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The states have always constitutionally required only the feds to respect general constitutional prohibitions on “government” powers.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Bingham had officially clarified 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 [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So given Bingham’s clarification of the limits of 14A, the states still have the power to regulate 1A protections as “atheist” Jefferson had indicated, although such powers are now limited by reasonable interpretations 14A.
Therefore, the politically correct argument about the Establishment Clause prohibiting anything remotely associated with the Christian God from all branches of local and state governments is clearly wrong imo.
Yes, next question.
Islam is a Political Movement masquerading as a Religion. Islam is unconstitutional and recognizes no Bill of Rights. Yes, it should be banned!
Amen to both!
I love Serbia FWIW!
So many of the acts practiced by 'slimes could be forbidden under law. That godawful howling they do five times a day, for example. Their praying in public schools or even public spaces (hey, if Christians can't put up a Nativity scene ...). Their conspiracies to commit mayhem and manufacture weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as "worship services."
The bottom line is that no ideology that advocates the subjugation of its hosts should be able to claim the protection of those hosts.
Islam is not a religion, it is a WAR PLAN!
Definitely.
Islam isn’t compatible with Western civlization.
Nope, not going to fly under constitutional muster.
Even Communism or Nazism are not illegal to believe, write about or promulgate.
And quite frankly, I don’t the want government to be able to say that *ANY* belief is illegal, because neither you not I know who will be in control of the government in the future.
A government that can outlaw Islam (and I hate it as much as anyone who has ever even THOUGHT about posting on FR) is a government that can outlaw Christianity.
You can forbid acts; I hope that there is never the ability to forbid BELIEFS, no matter how abhorrent.
Just because an act is suggested, encouraged or even required by a belief doesn’t mean it can’t be made illegal, obviously, otherwise everybody who wanted to do anything would just found or join a religion that allowed them to do it. Major difference between belonging to a religion (highly protected) and engaging in an act (or inciting others to do so) that results in harm to the life, liberty or property of others (not protected at all).
Islam is a political system of conquest with religious trappings.
Let’s make it a global ban.
Yes! Immediately!
Sheer lunacy.
We have this pesky little thing called "The First Amendment" in America...
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution “is not a suicide pact.” Thus, because Islam is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, it is “a clear and present danger” as defined in the Constitution, and our Government not countering it with every possible means is gross negligence. Our current president (capitalization deliberately omitted) has gone much further down the figurative “rabbit hole” in this regard: He has made repeated statements essentiially asking us to let ourselves and our loved ones be killed, raped, etc. while indicating we should be ashamed of ourselves for being upset. For example, to attempt to denigrate us, he has called us racists, even though adherants of this death cult come from every race. We are neither racists nor suicidal.
Finally , there is some real Hope for justifiable Change that will protect us from the terrible danger that Islam poses, i.e., in the personage of President-elect Donald J. Trump. I implore him to do his duty in this regard because, as my screenname indicates, I have personal experience that agrees with unbiased sources that have exposed Islam for what it is. I swear that the foregoing is true, and that failure to eradicate, yes, I say, eradicate, Islam, like any other “wolf” in our midst, will cause our nation’s demise as well as that of many of its citizens.
The foregoing eradication must be via legal means upheld by the Supreme Court: those who will not sincerely and completely renounce Islam must be deported, exiled or incarcerated until they do. All mosques and other properties must be seized by the Goverment and all other steps necessary to fully eradicate Islam must occur.
Islam delenda est!
I don’t think it should be a considered a religion, nor should it get 1st amendment protection.
....Both house and ground were vested and in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Ben Franklin, autobiography
FYI – The proper word is tenets.
A common mistake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmywzjdtRM
The majority of Muslim Refugees would rather be in Syria under Sharia Law than in America.
“Where muslims are the minority, they are obsessed with minority rights. Where muslims are the majority, there are no minority rights.”
Nonsense. This is not a fascist society. Indeed, were our culture to adopt such tactics, the terrorists would, by definition, have won.
Islam is not a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”— Radical Islam is.
By your logic, Christianity could be designated as a similar threat if Christian Radicals started pulling the same stunts.
Isn't the Nazi party allowed to exist in the United States?
The First Amendment is a stubborn thing.
The Old Testament says "suffer not a witch to live". Does that mean we have the right to go around burning self-declared witches?
The United States you're describing would be utterly unrecognizable as a cradle of Liberty.
Now, having said all that, I have little doubt in my mind that the world may one day reach an ultimate crisis, as it did with the Nazis in World War II, where Nazism had to be obliterated, and at a terrible cost.
If Fundamentalist Islam remains unreformed, the religion might very well share the same fate.
The First Amendment is a stubborn thing.
Something tells me that President Trump's vision of "doing his duty" may differ significantly from your concept of him "doing his duty".
You're aware, I assume, that there are currently on this planet Islamic nations which possess nuclear arms?
I wonder what their reaction might be to your totalitarian proposals?
So dream on. The solution to US security is not to become a totalitarian Regime which bans certain thought patters. Destroying those who are identified as harboring such thought patterns is another thing altogether, of course.
Furthermore, any religion can theoretically create extremists which twist it into being a "clear and present danger" to the United States.
The sad fact is that the nice, tidy, simplistic solution you seem to support is not only untenable, but might very well result in the total destruction of the Republic you claim to want to secure.
The solution is going to lie somewhere between the extremes of doing little or nothing, as we are now, and totally destroying our bedrock principles, which would be even worse.
As far as I can see, neither of these approaches will solve the problem.
As for myself, for the moment I can live with this quote from soon to be Secretary of Defense Mattis:
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment [in American democracy] and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."Now that's an idea I can get behind without much debate...
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.