Posted on 12/12/2004 10:39:22 AM PST by jonestown
The Olique reference that I am refering to is the Letter that Jefferson wrote. It has nothing to so with the COnstitution, nor is it any type of legal document. All that it is, is a Letter that Jefferson wrote. Like if you were to write me a letter. That's all that the Left has based their BIG MOUTHED argument on a stinking letter!! Nothing else.
That's easy, we pretend there are no state's rights and no constitution. It started post civil war and the trend exploded during FDR, unless secession becomes a reality soon, I see no way to stop it.
Brett66 wrote:
That's easy, we pretend there are no state's rights
THAT should be the opening statement for ALL candidates seeking an office in doing "the peoples" work"!
By amendment if necessary.... ;~ )
It depends entirely on the party. In this example it is a good thing, if the situation were reversed it would be tragic.
It would be tough, especially when government has such a hold on education and both parents in a family have to work to pay for this government "service".
It makes for a long row to hoe when it comes to teaching children the true meaning of the Constitution and what it stands for.
The Problem that compounded the Morman religion was the acceptance of Polygamy, which is against the Laws of God, from the Bible, so there was no seperation of the CHurch from the state in this decesion, actually there was a Conformity to the teachings of the Bible and the Laws of God. This is the same thing we are faced with now, the acceptance of Homosexuality and Same sex marriage. There is no problem with the Laws of God or the Constitution because they support each other. Homosexuality is an Abomination to Lord and is against the Laws of God. Man may choose to do what it is that he wants, it may conform to the Laws of God or it may go against the Laws of God, which way do you choose.
Which way do we, as a People Choose. Our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are Subserviant to the Laws of God, and Conform to the Laws of God. The Laws of God cannot be changed, no matter what language that man may choose to use it can never be twisted to fit the homosexual or same sex marriage agenda.
If the Constitution is changed then it will be against the Laws of God, because it is a derivative of the Bible.
RightWhale---
I've seen you propose this Government vs State distinction before, but I'm not sure I follow. By State are you meaning society at large?
As you say, 'separation' also can't be found in the Constitution either.
-- Nevertheless, State supported churches were not seen as part of a "Republican Form of Government", and gradually were abandoned.
Soon after, Utah's statehood was held up until they separated their church from government support.
35 jones
So, --- you agree that States should not support churches?
44 jones
It was NEVER intended that the State or the Federal Government support a Religion. The people were free to practice their various forms of religious beliefs. I am sure that the prejudice of their times and their tolarance is quite evident in the religions that were Tolerated by our fore fathers.
Do you think they would have allowed the muslim religion to thrive within the borders of 18th century America? They were after all out to convert everyone to the Christian religion. Now it seems that the christian religions is under attack. Interesting times we live in.
I am referring to the Modern State. The American antistatists, which is and was most Americans from the beginning, lump the State and the Gov't together, which is unfortunate because there is a distinction. Non English speakers get this right away and do mean different things by Gov't and State. The American antistatists have created, somehow without meaning to or even knowing what they have done, the Modern State with full power and fury. Ironic, isn't it.
I'll try and read between the lines again. So by State, you mean the Modern State (Government) and by Government, you mean a more general concept of governance which would include family and other societal structures which do not have general authority of the modern state.
Am I getting warm? Can you refer me to some writing on this Government vs Modern State distinction?
Thanks.
Article VI deals with the "jurisdiction" of treaties made by the federal government with foreign countries and then yes the states are bound by such laws to enforce those treaties in spite of state laws and constitutions to the contrary.
For example, the federal Migratory Bird Act, was held unconstitutional when first applied to an Arkansas man because the our federal government lacked jurisdiction.
A treaty with Canada and Mexico was then ratified to protect migratory birds from being hunted year round.
Pursuant to Article VI (all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding) a new Migratory Bird Act was passed and the next violator of the law was convicted constitutionally.
Federal jurisdiction, prior to the 14th amendment, within the boundaries of the a sovereign state, was primarily established through the Article I, Section 8, Cl 3 and Cl 17.
Actually, the 14th just reiterated the Constitutional principle that no level of government in the Union had the power to ignore the individual rights outlined in the Constitution as Amended.
States & their Officials have always been bound to honor the 'jurisdiction' of the US Constitution by Article VI.
40 jones
There is very little such writing. Morris, maybe. As for a distinction, which branch of government is the military? How about the Press? The bureaucracy? The AFL-CIO?
There are warnings, but none of them direct and clear. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, much read, little understood, very clear once the reader gets onto the wavelength, is on the surface about the modern industrial society in the historical sense, but actually is a good description of the omnivorous Modern State.
Bump for later reading.
If your remark is true, then reconcile your remark with following:
Slaughter House Cases (1873) The Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause protected only certain narrow federal rights (such as the right to travel, to petition Congress, and to vote in national elections), not the protections found in the Bill of Rights.
Quincy Railways v. Chicago (1897) The Court ruled that the state of Illinois acted unconstitutionally when it took property without paying just compensation. The Court ruled that Illinois had violated Quincy’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The Court never actually said Illinois had to abide by the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation clause, but by using the Fourteenth Amendment to apply part of the Bill of Rights to a state action, the Court opened the door for similar protection of other provisions.
The following portions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated against actions by state governments:
Freedom of Speech, Gitlow v. New York (1925
Freedom of the Press, Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Right to Counsel in Capital Cases, Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Freedom of Assembly, DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)
Free Exercise of Religion, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
No Established National Religion, Everson v. Board of Ed.(1947)
Right to Public Trial, In re: Oliver (1948)
Ban on Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
No Evidence from Illegal Searches, Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
No Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Robinson v. California (1962)
Right to Counsel in all Felony Cases, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
No Self-Incrimination, Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses, Pointer v. Texas (1965)
Right to Impartial Jury, Parker v. Gladden (1966)
Right to Obtain Defense Witnesses, Washington v. Texas (1967)
Right to Speedy Trial, Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
No Double Jeopardy, Benton v. Maryland (1968)
Right to Counsel for Imprisonable Misdemeanors, Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
Right to Notice of Accusation, Rabe v. Washington (1972)
In addition, the state I live in, Missouri, specifically, in our Constitution, "incorporates" the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of the sovereign State of Missouri by stating:
Bill of Rights
Article 1, Section 4
That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.
Thus, -- States & their Officials have always been bound to honor the 'jurisdiction' of the US Constitution by Article VI, just as it is written.
jones
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.