Posted on 06/27/2005 8:47:57 AM PDT by Irontank
To reach the state of Kentucky's placement of the 10 Commandment in a state courthouse, the Court has to first hold that the 14th Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states (remember that it says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion")
Did the 14th Amendment make the 1st Amendment applicable against the states? Well, that's what the Supreme Court has said since 1947...but its a lie
We know its a lie because, in 1875 (only 7 years after it passed the 14th Amendment), the Congress debated adding another amendment (known as the Blaine Amendment) that read:
No state shall make any law respecting the establishment of religion....
The proposed amendment passed the House and was barely defeated in the Senate. More important than the fact that the proposed amendment failed is the fact that no one in Congress, during the debates over the Blaine Amendment, ever stated that the proposed amendment would have been unnecessary because they just made the 1st Amendment applicable to the states 7 years earlier. Had they really intended to make the 1st Amendment applicable, don't you think someone would have mentioned it? After all, many members of the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment were serving in the Congress that debated the Blaine Amendment.
Senator Frederick Frelinghuysen, one of the sponsors of the Blaine Amendment, made the following statement in Congress during the Blaine Amendment debates:
I call the attention of the Senate to the alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution provides that - "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States...Thus the article, as amended by the Senate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the estabishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise and from making any religious test a qualification to office.
4 CONG REC 5561 (Aug. 14, 1876, Statement of Sen. Frelighuysen)
If, in 1876, the 14th Amendment had not made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states (according the the very congressman who passed the 14th Amendment), how did the Supreme Court magically "interpret" it to do so 75 years later>?
I've not read the opinion, but only Clarence Thomas has previously noted that the Establishment Clause cannot logically or historically be applied against the states...I expect he will note that again in his dissent in the Kentucky case
And Harry Reid said Thomas' opinions were poorly written. Puh-leez.
It is not true that the entire bill of rights applies to the states. Unfortunately, the doctrine of selective incorporation applies; according to which only those rights deemed "fundamental" - determined on a case by case basis are applied to the states. BTW - the 2A has NOT been incorporated.
A helpful and informative link:
http://www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org/Articles/constitutional_primer_14th_amendment.htm
Particularly this section: When, Where, and How Did The “Selective Incorporation” Doctrine Get Started?
Clearly, judicial activism is nothing new.
Actually, there are many legal experts who have argued that the Establishment Clause cannot logically or historically be applied against the states...most notably Yale Law School professor Akil Amar who has written several law review articles on this subject
"When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."
Justice Thomas's statement is reassuring and familar.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson
Who here would like to live in a state which could decide what stories newspapers printed, what religion you could legally practice, when and if you could peaceably assemble, etc...? What if your state made it illegal for you leave and move elsewhere? Is mob rule (majority rule with no protection for individual rights) something we should advocate?
LOL, will that same ruling also ban Ruth Bader Ginsberg from retaining her SCOTUS seat?
Even were this the case, and I don't believe everyone agrees that it IS the case, having the Ten Commandments in a public building in no way constitutes an "establishment of religion" in the sense that that phrase is employed in the Constitution.
Only a libertarian, a radical atheist or d@mn fool would consider it as such. And I think enough of the foregoing are present in the SCOTUS to explain this moronic decision.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to address the very specific issues involving newly freed slaves, not matters such as this.
An interpretation such as you propose for the 14th Amendment would invalidate the 10th Amendment.
The Founding Fathers were very clear in nearly every document they penned that regarded Judaeo-Christian principles as the bedrock on which this nation was founded.
Only since the idiocy of the Warren Court have political heresies been expounded and accepted in decisions like this one.
The Supreme Court, with one or two exceptions, is composed of a bunch of senscent old fools with a very definite social agenda - one that is in conflcit with decades of prior American history and traditions.
Again, this decision is certainly no surprise given the trend of very recent Federal Court decisions - but the response of the American People to this and the prior idiotic decision on private property confiscation SHOULD BE.
Our elected officials should IGNORE these idiotic decisions.
Sometimes you get a voluntary zonderkommando in the midst of these things, and this is not the first time Ruth has taken her place in the ranks of the forces of darkness.
That's the reason the liberal loons tried so hard to stop him from becoming a Supreme...
First of all, it is imperative for you to understand that this argument revolves around NOT WHAT I WANT OR DESIRE, but what the law actually says. It is irrelevant whether or not I want the 14th amend to apply to the states; the only relevant question is was the 14th amend MEANT TO APPLY TO THE STATES. It was not.
Secondly, I find it absolutely amazing that you do not realize that we ALREADY DO LIVE IN THE STATE WHIHC YOU DESCRIBE!!!! Are you going to deny that the S. Court could wake up tomorrow and decide that merely THINKING about firearms, for example, could get you the death penalty. The S. Court could further rule that the sentence could not be carried out until your children were first slowly tortured to death before your eyes. The justification for this ruling would be found in the fact that there are certain penumbras that emanate and masturbate in conjunction with the Cromwellian and agrarian movements of the late 18th century, that give meaning and credence to the proletariat impulses evident in Flavian philosophical musings that make this sentence constitutional. Can't you see it? IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
I am being slightly facetious, of course, but as a conservative you must know that the S. Court can do just about what it pleases and the filthy animals who call themselves US citizens would nod dumbly and mutter, "Yes, master." Surely you know if the state of California "could" do the horrible things you describe, then certainly the federal government and the S. Court can do.
It is easier for an individual state to strip away all federal constitutional protections than it would be for the federal government to do the same. We've already seen it.
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse. You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment
Maybe, maybe not, that is certainly debatable, but the facts remain; the feds and the SC can do whatever they want; it is FAR FAR FAR easier to flee the tyranny of, say, the state of North Dakota than it is the tyranny of the feds; the 14th amend was not meant to appy to the states, whether we desire it or not.
"mob rule (majority rule with no protection for individual rights)"
You've just defined a democracy (as opposed to a republic).
I was required to attend church service in bootcamp as recently as 1967
If not, they'll find it by looking in international laws...
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.