Posted on 12/13/2016 11:28:34 AM PST by heterosupremacist
Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic League’s crèche:
Every year there are many news stories on the unconstitutionality of displaying a nativity scene on public property. Some of those stories are simply wrong.
There can be a problem when the proposed site for the display of religious symbols is on the grounds of a county courthouse, or near some other municipal building (it cannot appear that the government is endorsing religion). But if the property is a public forum, such as a park, that is different. If the area is available for concerts, artistic displays, rallies, and the like, then the government cannot selectively deny religious expression.
If there is any doubt about this issue, then the skeptics need to see the life-size nativity scene in New York City’s Central Park, on the corner of 59th Street and 5th Avenue, courtesy of the Catholic League. It was erected by Ernie Chirico and Joe Agosta of Cross NY on our behalf. The site is known as Grand Army Plaza, situated in front of the Plaza Hotel.
The Catholic League receives a permit from the New York City Parks Department for its crèche. It will be up for 24 days, through the new year.
Merry Christmas to all. And don’t let the anti-Christmas bullies prevail!
Whoa!
Nice!
I love it! In formerly Catholic Spain , the new radical left-wing government of Madrid canceled the traditional Nativity scene in the Puerta de Alcalá, one of the imposing city gates - a big stone archway built by Carlos III in the late 18th century.
Madrid citizens have been bringing their family Nativity scenes out and leaving them at the archway, and other people have been building new ones.
Re : Post #5
You are referring to the Menorah, the symbol Hanukkah (The Festival of Lights) _ I think it’s great they do this, my one concern is this:
Can the NYPD protect the display from being vandalized?
In NYC, do they have a bunch of wise guys instead of the three wise men?
Too late. Here the US Constitution exempts the President from having to work on the Christian Sabbath:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
.
.
This is the ending of the US Constitution.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
The US Constitution clearly endorses the Christian Religion.
I was just in a post office in a very blue state. The friendly clerk ( “diverse”) was softly singing “Santa Baby” as he processed my pile of packages, obviously Christmas presents. I am not tired of winning.
Re “Post #7
*In NYC, do they have a bunch of wise guys instead of the three wise men?*
I believe they have done that in Brooklyn...
Q. Why wasn’t Jesus born in NYC?
A. God couldn’t find three wise men, or a virgin...
It was only a joke, don’t flame me.
Yes,I knew it was a symbol of Hanukkah and now I recall what it's called.As for preventing vandalism I saw no sign of vandalism either with the Nativity Scene or the Menorah.And being situated where they were (5th Avenue and Central Park South) one might think they were pretty safe.
Situated elsewhere,maybe not.
“There can be a problem when the proposed site for the display of religious symbols is on the grounds of a county courthouse, or near some other municipal building (it cannot appear that the government is endorsing religion)...”
WRONG!
What part of “nor shall the free expression thereof be prohibited” is hard to understand?
Nothing in that clause says the people’s expressions of religious belief is disallowed on government grounds or buildings.
“Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion” simply means the gubbermint can’t establish a theocracy, or force the people to participate in it or believe it.
This has been settled long ago by SCOTUS.
The town where I live has a Nativity Scene-—donated by a local family, not purchased with tax dollars-—displayed every year IN THE COURTHOUSE SQUARE (near the statue of a confederate soldier, btw.)
We received, a few years ago, the standard threat letter from the atheists / communists, accusing the town of violating the Constitution.
Our town attorney replied by suggesting their attorney READ the Constitution, and also suggested the atheists go pound sand.
The atheists slithered off, to intimidate others more easily intimidated.
The Nativity is there in the Square now.
For starters, the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect either the “government” powers prohibited by the Bill of Rights (BoR) to Congress, or the rights expressly protected by the BoR. Only the feds were limited by the BoR.
In other words, the states could make laws which reasonably limited 1st Amendment-protected rights for example.
In fact, regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about “atheist” Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” concerning “government” power to regulate religion for example, the real Jefferson had noted the following. The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the states had reserved uniquely to themselves the specific powers to regulate 1st Amendment-protected rights for example, regardless that they had made 1A to prohibit such powers to Congress.
“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.
H O W E V E R …
When the states ratified the 14th Amendment (that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances) they committed themselves to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR, as opposed to the government powers expressly prohibited to the feds by the BoR.
In fact, the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that 14A did not take away state powers as the 1st Amendment prohibits such powers to the feds for example, but limited those same powers for the states.
“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)
But the question remains, how did the states wind up also being prohibited from exercising 10th Amendment-protected state powers to address religious issues, powers that Jefferson had clearly indicated that they had, and that Bingham had indicated in wide language that 14A did not take away?
As indicated above, FDR’s state sovoreignty-ignoring justices did the dirty work. They did so by wrongly applying 1st Amendment prohibitions on federal powers concerning basic freedoms to the states through Section 1 of 14A, regardless that Bingham had officially clarified that 14A took away no state powers.
In fact, here is evidence of FDR’s activist justices wrongly ignoring Bingham’s clarification of the limits of 14A concerning state powers.
"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, noting that FDR had split the Court as he was building a state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority, Justice Reed had clarified that it is the job of judges to balance 10A-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 while explanation of unconstitutional federal government interference in 10A-protected state power to address religious issues is relatively easy to explain up to this point, the tangents to be examined are beyond the scope of a post at this point.
The bottom line is that INTRAstate public religious displays are another issue, like so-called politically correct constitutional “rights” to gay “marriage” and abortion, where patriots need to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Reminds me of an old fifty year old cartoon from the 1960s.
A man is on his knees in front of a Nativity scene with Three Wise Men. He says to his wife...
“To YOU they are Three Wise Men! To ME, they are the Patron Saints of Advertising!”
Stellar Post!
You should apply for a position with Team Trump! ~ MAGA!
Re : Post #12
Excellent post - I LOVE happy endings, especially in matters such as these.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Very nice! There have been a number of thefts from life-size nativity scenes this season, which is is typical here. Sometimes the figures are returned and sometimes not.
And a MERRY CHRISTMAS to you and yours! :-)
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.