Posted on 02/22/2005 5:10:49 AM PST by SJackson
Sometimes I really long for the old days. Teachers began the school day with a few Bible verses, a short prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, maybe a patriotic song, and as far as I could tell, no one objected. I believed it made America strong. Children growing up now have no sense of patriotism and when it comes time to protect our country in the future, who will go? Will they believe there is anything in America worth fighting for? Maybe we Christians should just get in the closet and keep quiet.
I do not expect much out of a court that made 'sodomy' a civil right.
Then again there have been more than a few that got a wake up call down through history. Christian who crawl in closets and keep quiet will fare no better than those that hate the Heavenly Father.
Yeah, that's a good idea - the "politically correct" Ten Commandments.
True.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.
Before Reconstruction, however, almost all of the States had the Commandments codified into civil law.
The Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments, written by David Barton, is a wonderful resource full of historical facts and quotes!
Perhaps the 'problem' is the first five of the 10 commandments, which deal with man's relationship to the Lord. Perhaps there could be a compromise by displaying only the last five, which are the historic basis of law.
Perhaps the problem is that the left view the 10 commandments as a checklist of things to accomplish before they die - been there done that, doing that one tommorrow, doing that one next week...
--- Perhaps the 'problem' is the first five of the 10 commandments, which deal with man's relationship to the Lord. Perhaps there could be a compromise by displaying only the last five, which are the historic basis of law. ---
No. The "problem" is that people have read a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Marbury Baptist Association and somehow deemed it to be above the constitution itself.
The wording in the 1st amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Nowhere do the words "Separation of Church and State" exist in the constitution. It is reading of those words *into* the constitution where the problem lies.
If the SC simply concluded "Having a statue in front of a courthouse does not represent a law created by congress to establish any particular religion" they would be done.
Seriously! If I thought that the mere sight of religious text or an icon had that kind of power over me I think I'd lock myself in a foil-lined closet. I sure wish these people would.
What is most pathetic about the whole case is that the defense of posting the 10 commandments in public places has fallen to the "its historically significant" rather than "it is protected by the 1st amendment under the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
The US Constitution allows posting of religious material. It only prohibits congressional laws regarding the establishment of religion.
This problem is an outstanding example of Judicial Tyranny. The SC is now more powerful than the constitution itself. It sees SC Doctrine as the rule of law.
The wording in the 1st amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . If the SC simply concluded "Having a statue in front of a courthouse does not represent a law created by congress to establish any particular religion" they would be done.
So you think the U.S. federal and state governments are permitted to do anything that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid them to do?
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching? Or did you just miss a really important day of history class?
I do not expect much out of a court that made 'sodomy' a civil right.
And I don't expect much out of people who see nothing wrong with criminalizing private bedroom behavior. All the SCOTUS ruled was that it's unconstitutional for state law to make 'sodomy' a crime; people who regard that as 'judicial tyranny' strike me as tyrannical themselves. As with the posting of the Ten Commandments: if you don't like it, look away.
Before Reconstruction, however, almost all of the States had the Commandments codified into civil law.
Correct. And after Reconstruction, the states were subject to the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment, which made just a wee bit of difference in what it was constitutional for them to do.
I have no particular problem with the public posting of the Ten Commandments, but it's not as simple as 'the First Amendment doesn't apply, so it's all right'.
Aren't they?
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching?
The Ninth refers only to rights of the people that aren't enumerated. The Tenth refers only to powers not delegated to the Feds or prohibited to them being under the authority of the States or the people. The Fourteenth defines who is a citizen and prohibits the Feds and States from abridging their immunities and privileges as such.
How do any of those three Amendments apply to aesthetic displays? How do they prohibit the U.S. government or States from doing anything not specifically prohibited therein?
Who gave this bunch of 'Supremes' authority over States?
The framers of the Constitution -- which included judicial review from the get-go (see Federalist 78, well before Marbury v. Madison (1803)) and also included a procedure for ratification of amendments, which was followed in the case of the Fourteenth. In short, the setup from the very beginning gave 'this bunch of "Supremes"' the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws and regulations and such, and the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal judiciary constitutional authority over the states.
You may well be an attorney, and worship at the altar of these so called supremes, but I answer to a Higher Authority.
This statement is silly. People who disagree with you don't therefore fail to answer to Higher Authority.
It's just nonsense -- and anti-American nonsense at that -- to suggest that because the First Amendment says only that 'Congress shall make no law', that settles the matter. That's a recipe for a totalitarian government. Perhaps that's what people who want to pass laws criminalizing private bedroom conduct would like to have, but guess what: the Constitution -- and the Higher Authority Who endowed us with 'certain unalienable rights' -- says you can't.
What does "Congress shall make no law..." mean then?
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The churches aren't silent, the media just refuse to interview them. It's called a news blackout.
So you think the U.S. federal and state governments are permitted to do anything that the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid them to do?Aren't they?
No.
Did we repeal the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments when I wasn't watching?The Ninth refers only to rights of the people that aren't enumerated. The Tenth refers only to powers not delegated to the Feds or prohibited to them being under the authority of the States or the people. The Fourteenth defines who is a citizen and prohibits the Feds and States from abridging their immunities and privileges as such.
It also prohibits each state from depriving any person (citizen or otherwise) of life, liberty, or property without dur process of law (the italicized word being the one on which Justice Kennedy relied in his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas), and from denying any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.
How do any of those three Amendments apply to aesthetic displays? How do they prohibit the U.S. government or States from doing anything not specifically prohibited therein?
The entire point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments was to settle a conflict between the parties among the framers who didn't want a Bill of Rights (because that might imply that any nonenumerated rights and powers had been ceded to the new federal government) and those who did want one (because they wanted to make absolutely sure there were certain things the new government was not permitted to do). The result is an express statement, in two amendments, that the federal government is obliged to respect even those rights not expressly enumerated in the text, and is not given any powers not expressly delegated to it in the text. (Of course these amendments applied only to the federal government when they were passed, because the Fourteenth Amendment didn't yet exist.)
It doesn't necessarily follow from any of this that courthouses can't display the Ten Commandments, and I'm not saying it does. But there are good arguments against it, and there are bad arguments against it. The one offered here is a bad one.
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.