Posted on 05/21/2006 6:16:23 AM PDT by AZRepublican
The ACLU once again finds an very accommodating federal judge who found no problem in destroying the only absolute sovereignty for which this nation rests upon: the people.
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order sought by a student who didn't want prayer to be part of the graduation exercises from a south-central Kentucky school some 110 miles southeast of Louisville.
This didn't stop the principal at the beginning of the graduation ceremony from reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd at the Russell County High School gymnasium. We can all be proud of this principle for standing up to the ACLU and federal judge in their attempts to deny the people of KY as the "only legitimate fountain of power."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed suit on behalf of the unidentified student on Tuesday. ACLU attorney Lili Lutgens said she was pleased with the judge's order and "very proud of my client for standing up for the Constitution." Lutgens said prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views.
I have some bad news for this quack ACLU lawyer and federal judge: This federal order does not stand-up for anything that can be explicitly found or liberally interpreted under any amendments that exists today in the US Constitution. I think instead what the ACLU is really "proud of" is the fact how easily they can manipulate and build false court precedent that supports their twisted ideology of how society should be governed through federal courts. What this ACLU sponsored ruling achieves is to strip every citizen of this nation their guarantee privileges and immunities to choose for themselves how their own affaires are to be conducted both in private and publicly. This is a solemn right of all free people of this nation that boggles the mind when one considers how easy the federal judiciary finds it to violate this guarantee right of all free citizens of the United States under any false pretense they care to dream up.
What drives the ACLU nuts, and a few justices, is the fact the sovereignty and absolute legitimate power of this nation is found in the people and they simply do not like it because it deflates the power of the judiciary over individual conduct within the domain of the States. So they resort to comical precedent to circumvent this realty of our form of government.
While I am on my soapbox over this incomprehensible nonsense, I want to give the ACLU and this federal judge a lesson in constitutional history that is beyond argument. Let me begin by reaffirming what our republican form of government is all about in the words of Madison from Federalist #45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.Liberal Supreme Court justices will tend to bite their upper lip whenever they are reminded of this, and like the ACLU, will go into great lengths of denial to disclaim the fact the federal government was never empowered over the affairs of the people of the States. Instead, they will faithfully try and find comfort in the 14th amendment to continue their pathetic ideology of an all powerful judiciary that is only limited by how creative justices are in inventing new powers and rights in empowering federal courts over everyone and everything.This School prayer is not the result of an unconstitutional State enactment, which is the only avenue for the 14th amendment can come into play. There is no way to liberally make this a 14th amendment issue either, as the author of the first section, John Bingham, slams the door on any attempt to liberally read more into his amendment then the text and history allows:
The great want of the citizens and stranger; protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactment's, is supplied by the first section of this [14th] amendment. That is the extent it hath, no more.Since there is no unconstitutional State enactment involved here, the federal court is powerless to intervene. Oh, I know the ACLU will claim the Supreme Court has ruled the first amendment establishment clause was magically made a limitation upon the States by the fourteenth amendment. But this is junk jurisprudence of the lowest denominator where no support from 39th Congress who debated the amendment or Bingham himself can be found.As I have written in my draft of A Dummies Guide to Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment, the State of New Hampshire ratified the fourteenth amendment on July 6, 1866. Five months later the NH Supreme Court ruled on a State Constitutional provision that authorized the "support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers" declaring that matters of State and religion were still "left exclusively to the State governments." Obviously then, the States did not ratify the fourteenth amendment under the illusion they were making the entire Bill of Rights a direct limitation upon themselves that includes the 1st amendment's establishment clause.
Bingham himself called the ruling by the Supreme Court of his home state of Ohio as "just and proper" when it ruled in 1871 that the "privileges or immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the US Constitution and belonging to US Citizens, and not those privileges or immunities that are the result of a State Constitution and laws belonging to citizens of a State." (Garnes v. McCan, et al. (21 Ohio State Reports))
And what happens when citizens of a State exercise their guarantee to a republican form of government, elect through the ballot box to encourage school prayer? Would this be unconstitutional? No, the reason is because Bingham made it clear the 14th amendment did not change the "letter and sprit of the US Constitution," and it is only through the people that any legitimate power can be exercised.
The 14th amendment protects people not from themselves under their liberty to govern themselves, but from oppressive State enactment by State officials -- which was the case of President Andrew Johnson and his oppressive puppet governments he formed following the civil war. This is what makes it is so obscene for federal courts to strike down voter approved initiatives.
Will be a bright and sunny day when the courts finally begin rendering decisions based upon the actual letter and spirit of the US Constitution and not what clueless liberal justices of the court "think" might be proper. The federal judiciary needs to get back to protecting citizens of this nation in their right to a republican form of government.
ACLU will support anyone's right to say most any word at anytime except for one word in particular, 'Jesus'.
As I've said many times before, this won't stop until the American people have had enough. The American people can no longer let these people erode our freedoms. There are a lot of politicians in DC that need to go home.
I wish that school officials like this Principal would put a lid on their religion in such instances, but the difference between me and the liberals is I don't go running off to the courts to get him to shut up.
Freedom is a beautiful thing. It allows folks we don't agree with to say whatever they darn well please. The courts should not bother to listen to the ACLU or any other busybody group. Sadly they do.
Amen!!!Me too!
Ditto!
WHO'S AFRAID OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635527/posts
List?
We need to point out that according to another post on this issue, the student who was represented by the ACLU just happens to be Muslim.
So in this case is it the courts wish that Christianity references be blocked to favor the teachings of another religion?
In that case it appears the judge is showing state favoritism to one religion over another which is totally contradictory to the letter of the law.
As far as the American people letting this go on...as long as we have our current two party system with "Republicans" like Specter setting the agenda for the Judiciary Committe this is going to go on.
There's just not enough difference between Democrats and Republicans to matter.
Sorry to be throwing in the towel, but I though back in '94 that the Contract With America was going to make a difference.
It did: now the Republicans are in "ins" screwing us instead of the Dems.
I'm voting third party next time.
Indeed we can and are! Absolutely no one should bow to the pressures of the ACLU in their incessant and egregious attacks on American values AND those who bring these frivolous law suits and the judges who allow them in his/her court should be soundly ostracized by bringing their silly acts before the public. The twits in the ACLU no more protect “rights” - they destroy them.
Voting for a third party candidate at this time will only be a vote for the Liberals. IMO, hundreds of thousands or millions of us contacting the Republican airheads in DC will do more. Cutting off their $$ will also be a strong signal that we're disgusted with their antics. Unfortunately, they too are playing the "power and ego" game.
McKinley, Joseph H. Jr.As aside; I suggest 'judge' McKinley pay attention to what his 'bosses' at the 6th Circuit US Courts of Appeals have to say on the 'separation of church and state'
Nominated by William J. Clinton
ACLU OF KENTUCKY; v MERCER COUNTY, KENTUCKY;
Decided and Filed: December 20, 2005"The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Game, set, match!
So the student was Muslim, the judge is a Clinton appointee (no doubt a former card carrying member of the ACLU himself) and the ACLU was founded by Communists. What more needs to be said? One of the best things that any concerned citizen can do is to join the Alliance Defense Fund, which is a very effective anti-ACLU organization. This group takes the battle right into the courtroom where they win cases against the ACLU all over the US.
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.