Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’? Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . .

Godfather Politics ^ | 9/4/15 | Gary DeMar

[Impala64ssa]

Did our founders, after drafting a Declaration of Independence, fighting a war with England, and then sitting down to pen a national governing document (the Constitution) put in that document the right of a majority of federal judges to make laws for the entire nation? Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is testing the claim that five unelected Supreme Justices have the authority to overrule a state constitution that she took an oath to uphold and a federal Constitution that says nothing about same-sex marriage. Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had this to say on the issue in a Facebook post: “Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. I disagree with my friends Maggie Gallagher, Rod Dreher, and Ryan Anderson on this one. The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis's position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.” The states have rolled over on the question of judicial supremacy, and Congress is too busy solidifying its power base to take on a nation-dividing fundamental issue. Governors don’t want to make waves and get involved in a protracted legal battle with the Federal government that has unlimited money to spend and ways to hold back federal funding (money it took from the states in taxes).

[HiTech RedNeck]

The question would inevitably arise about whether something was in pursuance thereof, or not.

Maybe some kind of meta-judicial body or structure should have been instituted in the Constitution to deal with such matters. But it wasn’t, and so all the weight went on the fulcrum of what was called the Supreme Court.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

No we haven’t. But we must still try with all our might. Never give up.

[Lera]

Check and balances does not mean equal power .

We are were we are because our legislature has abdicated their power to both the courts and the executive branch

We are now being ruled by tyrants

[TBP]

No, it’s binding on one branch and one branch only.

[M-cubed]

Maybe some kind of meta-judicial body or structure should have been instituted in the Constitution to deal with such matters <<

Sure!..one more layer of bureaucracy would have worked wonders!...

What were the Founding Fathers thinking!!....../s

[mumblypeg]

I don’t think its questionable motives. I think it’s just short sighted.
The Gaystapo has succeeded by marginalizing Christians, but we’ve marginalized ourselves, too, by failing to make this a larger Constitutional issue, and by hesitating to unite with seculars.

People who aren’t religious fail to understand the Gaystapo and their comrades will be coming for them pretty soon, and the Christians all along were the only ones looking out for their parental rights, and the safety of their jobs and families.

[aquila48]

” The only problem with Kim Davis’s position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.”

Exactly. Without a loud, massive and prolonged show of support by Christians and others who are against same sex marriage, she’ll just be turned into an example of what happens if you go against the gay Mafia.

[Ray76]

Davis is a Democrat....

[FlingWingFlyer]

The Founding Fathers never intended for the tyrants in black robes to have the powah that they have today. They do not have the authority to make law and levy taxes. Every damn judge in this country should be in jail for the unconstitutional crap they are pulling.

[Jim W N]

Not that mysterious.

Your “meta-judicial body” is the state legislature or governor who does a review of the federal decision or law in light of a good-faith application of the Constitution as written and originally understood.

Most of this would be easy becasue the Supreme Court has long since abandoned even a pretense of constitutional basis for their decisions. It would not be hard for a state to show the unconstitutionality of many of these federal acts.

From there, the state would notify the feds and the world of the unconstitutionality of the act and the state’s rejection and nullification of such act and the state’s intent to protect its citizens from the unconstitutional federal tyranny.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So a set of state civil disobediences is the idea... a dedicated set of Andrew Jacksons...

Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in the thought of how BAD the problem is, that we don’t consider all the ramifications of the proposed solution. Can it facilitate openness to the people who ultimately are where the buck has to stop. Our current system of a little court in DC with no appeal except an amendment certainly isn’t open to the people at all.

The Constitution didn’t set up good methods to enforce everything that America might have needed.

[ChildOfThe60s]

bttt

[Jim W N]

This is how it should legitimately play out IMO...

Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause) of the U.S. Constitution, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, give individual states valid basis for nullifying and rejecting unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny. Individual states must begin doing this, which, of course will mean those states must be ready for financial independence from the feds – but of course that is the basis of America’s beginnings to begin with – INDEPENDENCE.

Individual states must in good-faith nullify unconstitutional federal acts and notify the feds and the world why the nullified and rejected acts are unconstitutional. This is the only basis for action toward further state independence from the feds which one would hope would not be needed unless necessary.

At some point, individual state secession may be necessary. The Declaration of Independence gives instruction and guidance for valid secession. The D of I shows valid secession 1) should not be “for light or transient causes” 2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable” 3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally 4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.” This is not a constitutional dictate, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”

[P-Marlowe]

Very interesting, I hope this Lady sues the heck out of everybody involved and that is EVERYBODY!!!

She would have to go through the courts and the courts don't like her right now.

[Yosemitest]

If we OBEYED GOD, we would NOT have this problem !

Take these GREAT WORDS with you.
Put them on posters along with the faces that said them.


Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice



Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[NetAddicted]

Responsibility2nd posted that Jefferson quote about 11 hours earlier than this post. As I said then, SCOTUS needs to hang this on his wall.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3332877/posts?page=93#93

[NetAddicted]

Oh, shoot. I posted Scalia needs to hang that quote on his wall, but it would be a good idea if SCOTUS hung it up. Kennedy can get it tattooed.

[lavaroise]

My question is why consciousness objection is all of a sudden off limits?

[NetAddicted]

Good post.

[octex]

Indiana is governed by a RINO with weak character. (Some people thought of this fellow as a strong conservative.) There is a reason why the Founding Fathers emphasized character.
******************************
Just substitute OHIO for Indiana and the rest of your posting will apply as well. Kasich is a POS. ....Read earlier on FR an item that said Ohio has become the most government dependent State in the Midwest, thanks to Kasich. Time for him to go!