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 ...
If constitution-twisting 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. Indeed, Jefferson noted that the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:
"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.
No, the 10th Amendment doesn't mention any specific government power.
You have nonetheless repeatedly ignored that despite the fact that the madman Justice Black used Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause that Jefferson had noted that the Founding Fathers had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
"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.
The bottom line is that Justice Black probably couldn't have picked a worse person to quote to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause. Justice Black outright ignored Jefferson's "secret formulas" for interpreting the Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
There is no debate about the so-called constitutional principal of absolute c&s separation. After all, Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, made it clear that the states uniquely have the power to address religious issues.
What has happened is that anti-religious expression special interest groups long ago failed to wrap Congress around their fingers with respect to making laws that reflected their selfish concerns. So selfish interest groups bypassed Congress by getting their members appointed as Supreme Court justices. Special interest factions were then able force their anti-religious expression ideas into the laws that Congress makes, Congress be damned.
The reason that Supreme Court anti-religious expression shenanigans have been going on for so long is that the people are ignorant of both their Constitution and how their government works.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
Anti-religious expression judges who don't take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously are taking advantage of widespread constitutional ignorance by walking all over our religious freedoms.
As I have stated elsewhere, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
His letter to the dude in Danbury assuring that there would be no national religion has certainly been misread by our intellectual bettors (sarc) on the Godless left.
> ...I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.
Thank you. Initial posts are limited and I wrongly presumed this to be the rule for the entire message board. This rattled a skeleton for me because I have participated in limited length message boards and they don't work for me.
If you explain why you posted from the Russian Constitution then perhaps I can comment.
Thank you for the encouragement.
My concern was length-limited posts. But the limits evidently apply only to the initial post.
It's not the Russian constitution -- it's the Soviet Communist constitution. It's the one the Democrats follow scruputiously. Go look at it. The Democrats follow it point by point. The government must guarantee the right to housing, the right to a job, the right to rest and leisure, the right to health care, and citizens are obliged to protect nature, etc. "Separation of church and state" is word-for-word straight out of it.
I'm unsure of the context that you are replying to.
Secularists and atheists tend to put Jefferson on a pedastal because of his "wall of separation" words which have been treasonously taken out of context by our corrupt, anti-religious expression Supreme Court.
Then, when I correct secularists about Jefferson's actual understanding of the "wall of separation" by pointing out Jefferson's notes about the 1st and 10th Amendments, then they change their tune about Jefferson and say that he's dead. So Jefferson goes from his place of honor on a pedestal as a hero to atheists to being gagged and tied and thrown into the back of a closed.
The bottom line is that neither the 1st and 10th Amendments or Jefferson's understanding of them where our religious freedoms are concerned are going to be disappearing anytime soon. I've told secularists that if they want constitutional absolute c&s separation then they can lead the people to exercise their Article V powers to properly amend the Constitution for absolute c&s separation. Otherwise, even if I wanted absolute c&s separation, I will not tolerate a renegade Court that mutinies against the Article 5 powers of the people by unlawfully legislating absolute c&s separation from the bench. I'm sure that others would feel the same way too.
Gotcha.
That explains everything. The Democrats have been reading the wrong constitution. ;^)
"The only one talking about the 10th is you."
That's the problem. The only one talking about the 10th is me.
So I'm curious, why do you not answer a simple question? I'm granting you the hypothetical power to fix this entire problem with a single sentence. Whats the problem?
"So I'm curious, why do you not answer a simple question? I'm granting you the hypothetical power to fix this entire problem with a single sentence. Whats the problem?"
We haven't been on the same sheet of music since this thread started.
I've participated in message boards where I have insisted that, when the 1st and 10th Amendment are taken together, the 10th Amendment reasonably delegates govennment power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. But I'm essentially hissed off the stage because of "my" ideas as the argumentative tone of your replies to my posts reflect.
Oops! Did I forget to mention that I got "my" insane idea about the religious aspects of the 10th Amendment from Jefferson's writings? But when I put Jefferson in their faces, the anti-religious expression lemmings go into denial mode and you cannot reason with them.
People question why the Constitution seemingly doesn't say anything about the powers of the states to legislate religion since the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits this power to the federal government. But this is because they don't understand that the Constitution's silence about state government power to address religion is actually what triggers the 10th Amendment to essentially automatically delegate this power to the state governments.
Indeed, because of widespread constitutional ignorance, the people have been intimidated by the renegade Supreme Court, particularly Justice Black, into thinking that the Founders meant for the establishment clause to mean that the 1st Amendment's religious prohibition on the federal government were meant to apply to the state governements as well. Isn't that obvious? :^O
So in short, rather than propose a way to rectify the problem, you would rather just whine about it, gotcha.
It's that or there is something about your real agenda that would come out in your proposal which you would rather not make public.
Remedies:
1. Interpret the free exercise clause as the dominant clause among the two religion clauses-- not the other way around as is presently done. This is also where Scalia messed up in Smith.
2. Acknowledge that if the 14th amendment application means anything it is that the establishment clause now applies to local establishments of religion.-- which is to say it cannot interfere with local religious organizations.
It is critical to acknowledge that present Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets our religious clauses backwards. The Court tries to avoid "establishments" to the total cost of free exercise. Americans have not meaningful civil rights as they relate to the free exercise of religion. That aspect of the clauses has been reduced to a freedom from religion. That would be the French revolution-- not the American revolution.
No amendments are needed-- just announce that Hugo Black was the anti-catholics fool he was and return to free exercise criteria.
Read the VA statute on religious liberty, which Jefferson also penned. It sums up Jefferson's views nicely. The pertinent section reads:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. 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.
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.