Posted on 06/15/2004 4:45:47 AM PDT by narses
... Putting ourselves in knots to deny Newdow standing or to claim the words "under God" are wholly non-religious are ridiculous, but they're "a testament to the condition of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence," says Thomas. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made their anti-Pledge decision because of our 1992 ruling in Lee v. Weisman, which forbade student-led prayers at graduation. If anything, reciting the Pledge is more of a church-state violation than graduation prayer since "a prayer at graduation is a one-time event, the graduating students are almost (if not already) adults, and their parents are usually present."
Purely as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, Thomas writes, "the Pledge policy is unconstitutional." But the Pledge should still keep "under God," he says, because earlier Supreme Court church-state rulings are wrong.
There are two religion parts to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of religion, or [2] prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The latter clause refers to individual rights, he says, but the former does not. Instead, he says, "it protects state establishments from federal interference. … As strange as it sounds, [applying the Establishment Clause to states because of the Fourteenth Amendment] prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected—state practices that pertain to 'an establishment of religion.'"
It's a case that needs wider discussion (a good place to start is referenced in Thomas's opinion: Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State (Harvard), reviewed in a Christianity Today editorial and an Alan Wolfe Books & Culture review). But Thomas demonstrates that the Pledge case is tricky only because of the Supreme Court's muddleheadedness, not because of the Constitution:
Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
There are two religion parts to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of religion, or [2] prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The latter clause refers to individual rights, he says, but the former does not. Instead, he says, "it protects state establishments from federal interference. … As strange as it sounds, [applying the Establishment Clause to states because of the Fourteenth Amendment] prohibits exactly what the Establishment Clause protected—state practices that pertain to 'an establishment of religion.'"
Freakin A Justice Thomas. Keep on keeping on.
That old time Catholic School ethic just keeps on rolling! Deo Gratias!
BTW, his words are gonna FREAK OUT the left. Watch for incoming from 360 degress. Pray for him, he is gonna take hits.
Yes, Clarance Thomas nails it.
Now that is how it was meant, thank God for intelligent men.
Oh, I'll pray for him alright and I thank the Lord daily for men like him. Men and women with the courage of their convictions.
Plain, simple english and yet the SCOTUS has, for 50 years, freaked it up. Now Justice Thomas (St. Thomas Aquinas, Pray for him!) dares to point out how tortured the modern court's beliefs are. They are gonna HATE this ruling.
Me too. But just wait, the lynch mob gathers as we speak.
bump
Grind.
Study the history of the 1st Amendment. Five of 13 states HAD tax support for religion. Free exercise and freedom from a National (Federal) Establishment Church allowed for diversity and freedom. The anti-God crowd HATED that.
I agree with him 100% btw. It is the historical REALITY. Facts trump opinions, and Justice Thomas just lit the match that will burn down the artificial and Marxist "Wall of Seperation of Church and State". God Bless and protect him!
I think the decision was correct. Because Newdow had no standing to bring the action there was no case to be decided and the 9th wasted a lot of time and money by accepting the case in the first place. Newdow did not have standing to complain about his daughter's training and neither the mother custodian nor the child principal desired the case to be brought.
Wow, he REALLY gets it.
" I would take this opportunity to begin the process of rethinking the Establishment Clause. I would acknowledge that the Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation. "
Outstanding post. Beautiful mind.
btt
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.