Posted on 12/15/2004 11:23:35 PM PST by Lancey Howard
bump! bump! bump! :^D
hehe! :^D
Yes write more and in addition to posting them here first! Mail them to the editorial staff of the NYT,WSHPST,NYPOST,LATIMES ...
One has to wonder why the Hugo Black reference is widely accepted as the "first" decision to cite the "separation" language. Thoughts?
Thanks for your kind words!
Regards,
LH
Thanks for your reply.
The fact is that any "strict constructionist" that Bush nominates will get: a) Borked, or b) filibustered. So Bush has four options: a) nominate "centrists" (like David Souter), b) nominate judges who have absolutely no paper trail and/or cannot be pinned down ideologically by anybody (a roll of the dice), c) surrender the lifetime appointments and go for the short-term fix of recess appointments, or d) implore the Senate Republican leadership to "go nuclear".
Dubya is a man of principle and a man of his word. He has said that he will nominate only "strict constructionists". But the Democrats will not accept "strict constructionists", so in order for Bush to remain true to his word, and the only way he could keep his promise, would be to get his nominees on the bench via recess appointments.
Except that there is a "nuclear option" and it absolutely MUST be excercised. There may be no second chance.
Thanks for your kind reply!
When you are done with your straw man arguments (or red herrings, or literacy problems, whatever) you can do a little research (and reading comprehension practice) of your own.
Nobody here (certainly not me) ever said that Hugo Black was the first to use the words "separation of church and state". My point was that the athiests of the ACLU and their Democrat allies have, over the past 25 years, leaned on Black's 1962 use of the phrase. (ENGEL v. VITALE)
Check it out if you wish.
And please read more carefully before you imply that I don't do research.
Anyway, I do appreciate your interest in this topic and I have learned interesting things from your posts. Thanks for reading the essay and for your replies.
Regards,
LH
"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
See how "government.... composing official prayers" has been perverted by the athiests of the ACLU and their Democrat brethren to the sick attack on American tradition and values (and even the Boy Scouts!) that we have today? Kids are being sent home for wearing crucixes; honors graduates are being told they are not allowed to refer to their religion at graduation; teachers are warned to tread carefully when they get to that part of the Declaration of Independence where it refers to "our Creator". Etc.
It's sick.
Thanks for your kind reply.
Maybe, maybe not. It would seem the aclu and their fellow travelers have glommed onto Black's language because it serves their purposes much better than the earlier(1878?) decision. Fact is, the 1878(?) decision cited the "separation" language almost as an aside it seems. In any case, if I were interested in taking down the church and its positive influence on our society/culture and I needed to make a choice between the two, I would have chosen Hugo Black's language. In fact a non-lawyer might interpret the 1878 language as almost stating there can be no total separation between church and state.....didn't it?
FGS
Thanks for reading and for your nice words.
See how "government.... composing official prayers" has been perverted by the athiests of the ACLU and their Democrat brethren...
With the aid of hand-picked judges and a squad of cheerleaders in the Old Media, AND I suspect more than a handful of moles in every institution in the country. I don't know how they operate but I would guess their MO is to scout out weak spots in the system to attack; set a precedent, then move on to the next mark. Sleazy ba$tard$!
FGS
Thanks for your interest in this topic and for your kind words.
These next couple of years are going to be mesmerizing for us political junkies. Bush and the Republicans have it all, and I sure hope they realize they have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Tempered with the reality they are fighting the devil himself. I've got a theory, well more of a suspicion really, regarding the roughly half of the population that doesn't bother to vote. I would hesitate to even venture a percentage, but a lot of 'em will tell you that it doesn't seem to make any difference which party gets elected, nothing ever really changes. Now, if the Pubbies were to make a hard right turn, would they not likely retain their base, AND begin adding some of the non-voting public to their rolls because they will begin to see a distinct difference between the social, er, Dims and the Pubbies? See in the Pubbies a party that is truly conservative and stands firmly on the side of the traditional values our country was founded upon. Would that send the rats over the edge or what???
FGS
Har! I think they are already hanging by their fingernails after the last election.
But yeah, I want to stomp on their fingers.
Excellent article, well worth the read. You write clearly, succinctly, and with a welcome undercurrent of humor. Must have been a fine, fine university you attended ;-}. I look forward to more articles from you. If you have a ping list, please add me to it.
Here's a link to a collection of Jefferson's comments on the subject of separation of church and state.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
Look at the context of Jefferson's comments in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
***
The "wall of separation between Church and State" has been created already by the Constitutional provision that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Free. Exercise. Thereof.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, Lancey Howard.
I was happy playing this for political usage in in 2002 and 2004.
But, you can only play this out for politics so long.
The time for using it for political gain is over. The time for change has come.
Use the nuclear option if that is what it takes.
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.