Posted on 08/26/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Amendment10
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
1st Amendment: Congress 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.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...
> About half of the colonies were religion based. But that all came tumbling down in 1776 with the commencement of the revolution. By 1788, only four of the thirteen states had establishments of religion. By 1790, only three had establishments of religion.
Thank you for that explication. Indeed, I was inaccurate in my statement, since I was thinking "colonies or states" but hastily wrote "states". My bad.
"Constitutions or statutes that prohibited the establishment of religion by law (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina),..."
I'd appreciate if you clarified what you meant when you refer to statutes that prohibited the establishment of religion by law.
For example, although secularists argue that Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom reflects the absolute wall of separation, the truth is that the Bill, particularly sec. 3, was actually an official "shame on you" for any future Virginia legislators who wrote laws to limit religious freedoms. In other words, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to address religious issues because he was an expert on using this power. Jefferson's Bill essentially respected all establishments of religion.
"Bill for Religios Freedom, Sect. III; AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
As I've said elsewhere, the Bill of Rights was incomplete because the Founder's overlooked checks on the unique, 10th A. protected powers of the states. This oversight was addressed with the post Civil War 14th Amendment. My attitude is that the states can establish all the religions that they want to with their 10th A. powers. I'll simply use my 14th Amendment protections to ignore state established religions and related state religion taxes.
With respect to human authority over religion, I think that Jefferson would have agreed with the honest interpretation of sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Jefferson certainly despised organized religions because they don't let people think for themselves. I think that his concern with government religious power was to prevent organized religions from not only pirating government power to force their beliefs down everybody's throats, but also to keep their hands out of people's wallets with respect to religious taxes.
"About half of the colonies were religion based. But that all came tumbling down in 1776 with the commencement of the revolution.
By 1788, only four of the thirteen states had establishments of religion. By 1790, only three had establishments of religion."
I think that you're trying to sidestep the real issue with respect to states getting rid of state religions. Your statement ignores that if a given state got rid of its state religion that it was exercising its 10th Amendment power to do so, not because an issue was being made that the state was violating the 1st Amendment's prohibition on the religious powers of the federal government.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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 eternal separation between Church & State.
He probably reflected on the fact that nothing on Earth is truly eternal... and as long as people wish to inflict their religious beliefs on others, and as long as governments have power, then there will be religious people who use the power of government to inflict their beliefs on others. It is the triumph of the U.S. Constitution that it has so far put up a good fight against those never-ceasing and dangerous movements.
TJ most assuredly believed in God, i.e., the God of Moses. Where he had doubts, I believe, was in man's behavior towards God and His laws.
Is it any wonder our nation's two greatest Presidents were lovers of the land, (and horses), who chose to live on mountaintops.
Don't you think you're being rather ridiculous in insisting he agree with you that a new constitutional amendment is needed? Your basic premise is that amendments should be written in exhaustive detail so as to exclude their misinterpretation by those poor, confused justices who can't be bothered with source writings from the laws' framers in order to ascertain their intent.
"Don't you think you're being rather ridiculous in insisting he agree with you that a new constitutional amendment is needed? Your basic premise is that amendments should be written in exhaustive detail so as to exclude their misinterpretation by those poor, confused justices who can't be bothered with source writings from the laws' framers in order to ascertain their intent."
I think that ndt knows exactly what I'm talking about regarding the 10th A. protected powers of the states, particular the power to address religious issues. But ntd doesn't want the reality check and is trying to confuse the issue.
You're not being honest with yourself dayglored.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Bill of Rights was flawed with respect to the 10th Amendment not having any checks. The post Civil War 14th Amendment was intended to check the 10th, the 10th likewise checking the 14th. The problem is that crooked secular judges are now taking advantage of widespread constitutional ignorance by ignoring the 10th so the 14th essentially has no checks.
I think perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my comment.
Jefferson's concern, and the scope of the Constitution, was at the federal level. Even though TJ deeply distrusted religious influence in any government, I don't think he intended for the fed-gov to impose limits at the individual state level. He understood the value of states' rights.
Likewise, the 14th -should- have been limited in scope; as you say, cross-checking with the 10th.
The nature of our Republic is such that individual states should have very wide latitude to experiment, including varying amounts of non-secular influence in otherwise secular state governments, as long as that influence does not infringe on federally-protected freedoms. As long as I have the right and ability to move myself to any state I wish, I have no gripe against another state's orientation.
It's only at the federal level -- where it acts as a blanket across all states and every citizen -- that the problems occur, in -either- direction (secular or non-secular).
Jefferson on Religion?? In Southern vernacular: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
"I think perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my comment."
Cyberspace communication isn't perfect and I could have misunderstand the intent of your comment.
"The nature of our Republic is such that individual states should have very wide latitude to experiment, including varying amounts of non-secular influence in otherwise secular state governments, as long as that influence does not infringe on federally-protected freedoms. As long as I have the right and ability to move myself to any state I wish, I have no gripe against another state's orientation."
I think that it is a little too politically correct to refer to state governments as secular. While I wouldn't say that state governments were appropriately regarded as religious either, regarding them as secular just gives more leverage to those who want to stifle our religious freedoms, the Constitution be damned.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, if secularists think that they have the license to force Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a private letter into the establishment clause, then they cannot complain if Christians find Jefferson's "Nature's God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence in the 10th Amendment.
'Jefferson nevers put anything as "golden". He second guessed himself and others continuously. He held slaves while at the same time saying that it was a "bad thing". That's Jefferson!!
Jefferson on Religion?? In Southern vernacular: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".'
I believe that Jefferson grew up with slaves and then inherited the slaves. And I understand that the Jefferson's treated their slaves with more respect than other slaves were treated. Corrections welcome.
But let's be honest with ourselves. After secularists find out that Jefferson acknowledged the religious aspects of the 10th A. powers of the states, they typically pull him off the pedestal and leave him gagged and tied in the back of a closet. Bringing up Jefferson's slaves is a typical response from Constitution-ignoring secularists who want to ignore the real Jefferson.
Also you seem to be concocting things about Jefferson because Jefferson wasn't indifferent about religion as you are wrongly misleading people to believe.
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
And it seems like SCOTUS deals with 14th amendment cases more than everything else combined.
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.