Replies

I'm sorry if my replies appear to be going off on a tangent. But we're actually discussing the likelihood of a white-collar criminal activity pulled off by government officials at the highest levels of the judicial branch of our government, a series of closed door events which took place more than 60 years ago.

Justice Black and his crony Justice friends first twisted the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion.

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Their modus operandi, in my opinion, was to spike the Cantwell opinion with an unconstitutional note about the 1st and 14th Amendments. This note would later be their alibi with respect to creating the illusion of having to conform to case precedent - a phony case precedent - that was deceivingly regarded as more important than what the Constitution says:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.

Trying to keep this post brief, the problem with both the Cantwell and Everson opinions (Everson mentioned below), as hinted by the above extract from Cantwell, is that there is no mention of the 10th A. power of the states in either of these opinions. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Justice Black and his cronies evidently regarded the religious aspects of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to with respect to pushing their under the table agenda of absolute c&s separation.

Getting back to the Cantwell opinion, not only did these cunning Justices later "bless" the validity of their unconstitutional "sleeper cell" note about the 14th Amendment in Cantwell by simply referencing Cantwell in conjunction with the 14th A. in the Everson opinion, but they conserved the momentum of their ploy in Everson by planting a new unconstitutional "sleeper cell" note attacking our religious freedoms.

Are we having fun yet?

As I've repeatedly noted, the Everson opinion is where Justice Black misreprented Jefferson and the intentions of the Founders by using Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify Blacks treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause. You've hopefully already seen the following paragraph from Everson, the paragraph containing Black's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause and Jefferson's "wall of separation" words:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947. http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

Fortunately for those of us who are dedicated to defending our constitutional freedoms, given Jefferson's understanding of the 10th Amendment, Justice Black probably couldn't have picked a worse person to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause.