One of Trump’s picks is under fire?! Say it ain’t so!
“perverts the bedrock American value of separation of church and state.”
Easy fix: Junk the Dept of “Education”
Problem solved.
it’s all about keeping crappy teachers indoctrinating children in failed schools.
DUH! REWEE!?
If not you’d know he made a bad pick
Under fire from who? Liberals?
Who cares. Just ignore them.
Am I wrong or did the founding fathers NEVER say “separation of church and state”?
No established religion by the govt.
That doesn’t mean a Godless govt.
I recall many of the founding fathers thinking God was rather important in the success of the nation.
Her hearing was postponed to next week. Anyone know why?
education reform is of paramount importance, don’t let her be borked.
I am waiting for some R Senator to say: ‘we confirmed a Communist for the SCOTUS for Obama......this lady doesn’t even come close to that!’.
Just for fun trump should nominate Hillary for some useless cabinet position.
Why bother? Just close the deparment. Education should be up to the states.
I’m so tired of the misunderstood meaning of “separation of church and state” being used to assail the constitutionally protected freedom of religion. There needs to be serious counter-argument put forth to destroy the notion that religious liberty may not be exercised when it comes to the education of children. I should be able to direct whatever tax dollars is gouged out of me (In the form of vouchers/deductions) to provide education to my children as I see fit. If that’s in a parochial school, so be it. If that’s in a homeschool, so be it. If you choose a public option, so be it.
-—The ACLU immediately went on the offensive warning that “private and parochial schools” would benefit. Such a condition it said, “perverts the bedrock American value of separation of church and state.”-—
I notice the aclu is silent about ‘church and state’ issues when it comes to things like Catholic/Methodist Charities taking millions of taxpayer dollars to give aid and comfort to the illegals (many of whom mean us harm).
And that is far from the only example of their hypocrisy.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Wherever the ACLU attorneys went to law school, and I don’t want to know, I hope that they at least got someone else to pay their tuition.
Patriots, please note that the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment (1A). The states obligated only the feds to respect those rights.
Note that regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the Establishment Clause and Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation,” the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about the religious aspects of the 1st and 10th Amendments. Jefferson had noted that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the states had reserved government power to regulate (I say cultivate) religious expression to themselves, regardless that they had also made the 1st Amendment in part to prohibit such power to Congress entirely.
”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 [emphasis added]; …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
It wasn’t until the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A), 14A ratified under very questionable circumstances, that the states obligated themselves, along with the feds, to respect all rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
So the ACLU’s misguided claim that absolute separation of church and state is a bedrock American value is actually anti-American bedrock value institutional indoctrination at its best.
But wait! There’s more.
Note that the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that 14A took away no states rights.
”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 existence.” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So in stark contrast to the ACLU’s implication that the founders had intended for “church and state separation” to be absolute, Bingham had indicated that the states still have the power to regulate our constitutional rights, 1A freedom of religious expression in this example, powers that “atheist” Jefferson had written that they have, such powers now reasonably limited by 14A.
But where did absolute “church and state separation” come from?
The evidence shows that FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongy “amended” Bingham’s Section 1 of 14A from the bench, wrongly interpreting Section 1 as taking away state powers in stark contrast to Bingham’s official clarifications that it did not. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantrell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
"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.
In fact, one of the FDR era, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that it was the job of judges to balance 10th Amendment-protected state powers with 14A protected rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
But a more powerful example of evidence of wrongdoing by FDR’s thug justices concerning their stifling of 10A-protected state power to address religious issues, evidenced by the Jefferson excerpt above, is the following.
Based on the language in the Cantwell excerpt above, FDRs justices essentially used their politically correct interpretation of 14A as an excuse to effectively interpolate a constitutional amendment that prohibits the states from making religion-based laws, just like 1A prohibits Congress from making such laws.
Consider that such an amendment to the Constitution might read in part as follows.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."
But here is the clincher regarding the Courts dishonest argument in Cantwell that 14A "reasonably" applied 1A’s prohibition on religious powers to Congress to the states.
Several years after the ratification of 14A (1868), Representative James Blaine pushed for an anti-Roman Catholic amendment to the Constitution (1875) that began with the exact wording that the ”hypothetical” wording above that FDRs thug justices seemingly based their statement in Cantwell on.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
So what FDRs anti-Catholic justices did not want citizens to know concerning their tortured interpolation of 14A in Cantwell, claiming that it applied 1A’s prohibition on religious laws to Congress to the states, is that the pre-17th Amendment Senate had failed to pass Rep. Blaine’s amendment in the Constitutions Article V amendment process, thus completely discrediting, imo, the Court’s later interpolation of 14A with respect to 1A in Cantwell.