There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights --
-- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.
Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.
'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.
What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench, you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue.
Wrong again, -- if some lawmaking body is writing law that favors the principles of one religion over another, they are violating the rights of non-favored citizens by ignoring the 1st.. The courts can redress such violations.
But no, no. [Some say,] "Alan, it's in the Constitution!" Well, as I recall, it's that very phrase they use in the Constitution to usurp their authority. So, frankly, the separation of church and state and this mythology they talk about--scour the document, you'll find it nowhere in there.
What you will find is a clear statement in the First Amendment that this power is withheld from the federal government,
The BOR's applies to ALL lawmaking bodies in the USA, Alan, as you well know..
and a clear statement in the Tenth Amendment that "all those powers not given to the federal government, or prohibited in the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people." --
-- With the clear understanding that the supremacy clause & the 14th both say the States are bound to honor the US Constitution & BOR's. It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..
Disagree. The phrase refers to making one religion "legal", while any other religion would be outlawed or barred. The Founders were trying to avoid the religous purges that occurred in England (like Bloody Mary), and I believe were talking about Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Baptists, etc. Applying that today, I don't believe that the Founders would have a problem witha 10 Commandments monument on city or county property, or within a county/district courthouse. They would have a problem with rounding up people who worshiped a particular religion they didn't practice - stating that only Christianity will be practiced, and anyone practicing Judaism will be arrested and jailed.
With regard to the 10th Amendment, I know you know that the purpose of the Constitution and the initial amendments were designed to limit the power of the federal government. I doubt that the people who implemented the 14th Amendment, which was to redress slavery issues primarily, would appreciate the fact that it was used to apply the first 8 Amendments in toto to every state legislature.
A tiny difference. A negligible difference.
Trust you, to focus on it, to the exclusion of the rest of the speech. Is it physically possible for you to give credit to anyone for anything, TP?
Great post, tpaine, but take it easy on Ambassador Keyes. He doesn't pretend to know much about the Constitution. His schtick is to pretend that it always conforms to the conclusions he comes to on his own. ;-)
Which applies to nothing whatsoever in the case of Roy Moore and his TC's monument.
tpaine: The BOR's applies to ALL lawmaking bodies in the USA, Alan, as you well know..
Which again has absolutely no bearing on Roy Moore's case.
You, of all people, would promote the expansive Fed power that led to gun control and the WOD? I can't believe it...