"Jefferson's" 1st Amendment

[Amendment10]

Thomas Jefferson expressed his Orwellian-like concerns about judges who legislate from the bench as follows.

"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113 http://tinyurl.com/zebwr

Given Jefferson's understandable disdain for crooked judges, if the Founders had taken the time to consult with Jefferson on how to write the 1st Amendment, perhaps the amendment would have been worded as follows.

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; nor shall the Court defeat the purpose of this amendment by legislating "laws" prohibited by this amendment from the bench.

The reason that our secular-minded Court has so far gotten away with its official, but scandalous, interpretation of the 1st Amendment, particularly the establishment clause, is that ignorance of both the Constitution and how our government is supposed to work is epidemic. This is evidenced by the following links.

http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8

Based on the information at the above links, the truth of the matter is that, given people are unsure as to the meaning of the "final" 1st Amendment because they don't know how the government is supposed to work, "Jefferson's" 1st Amendment would undoubtedly have confused people even more. Sadly, regarding such confusion, Jefferson had also expressed concern for such situations in general, what amounts to epidemic apathy concerning the erosion of our personal freedoms as a consequence of government bullying.

"Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves." --Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787

The bottom line is that bully, Constitution-ignoring judges have been taking advantage of epidemic ignorance of both the Constitution and how our government is supposed to work by walking all over our personal freedoms, particularly our religious freedoms. Indeed, the essay at the following link attempts to give a bird's eye view of how crooked Justices have been legislating prohibited "laws" from the bench in the last several decades, unconstitutionally limiting our religious freedoms in particular.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777822/posts

[supercat]

A bigger problem is the Second Amendment, which should perhaps be written:

Because a well-functioning armed populace is necessary to the security of a free state, any effort to disarm the free populace shall constitute treason.

Think that would be a good step up from "shall not be infringed"?

[c-b 1]

It would make it a bit more difficult to twist the meaning.

[Jim Robinson]

"Zogby Poll: Most Americans Can Name Three Stooges, But Not Three Branches of Gov't"

LOL. And therein lies the rub.

[AZRepublican]

“For national government to do as it pleases under the authority of the general good without distinction to the limited powers delegated under the Constitution during peace is dangerous, and ought not exist.”


Alexander Hamilton

[supercat]

"Zogby Poll: Most Americans Can Name Three Stooges, But Not Three Branches of Gov't"

If someone said the Three Stooges were Curly, Shemp, and Joe, would that be considered a correct answer?

[Hostage]

It would be more correct answer than saying the three branches of the federal government are the IRS, the SSA and the TSA.

[rogue yam]

The Jeffersons' first amendment: We're movin' on up!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

There is nothing more unequal, than the equal treatment of unequal people.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

[quietolong]

Why the leftist RATs fear the 2nd; WWII Vets clean up vote fraud in Athens TN. 1946
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1261101/posts

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Thank you for posting that URL.

[proudofthesouth]

I like the way you wrote that!

[StonyBurk]

Let me see Larry, Curley- and Kerry--
or wassit Hillery, Kennedy,and Obamma

[ICE-FLYER]

Here is the congressional record on the debate of the 1st Amendment by those who wrote submissions for it.

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. (Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789)

Its clear...and it is NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE like left leaning liars want us to believe today. Especially the ACLU who really does not want to overturn it wholesale as its their primary money maker.

[Mister Da]

"The reason that our secular-minded Court has so far gotten away with its official, but scandalous, interpretation of the 1st Amendment, particularly the establishment clause, is that ignorance of both the Constitution and how our government is supposed to work is epidemic."

The IGNORANCE mentioned here is a direct result of gov't run & funded schools. Get the gov't out of OUR schools & this will change for the better.

[Mister Da]

I agree with you, but I am disappointed in the final ambiguous wording, which, as we have seen, can mean many different things to different people, especially in the judiciary.

As suspicious as they were of the judiciary, I am surprised the wording wasn't more direct & clear. They must have realized these words could be misinterpreted, so why did they agree to the final, ambiguous wording?

Regardless of the 1789 debate on the wording, it seems that they reached a compromise, meaningless wording & left the decisions to the courts.

No matter. The rest of the 1st Amendment is pretty clear, yet those rights are frequently denied & criminalized, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights. Only the next revolution will right the wrongs of our gov't & society. Even if EVERY incumbent in gov't loses the next election, the judges & bureaucrats would still be entrenched in their corruption for decades to come. So I don't hold out much hope for our present Constitution. I just hope I live to see even the beginning of the next revolution.

Sad.

[ICE-FLYER]

I would only disagree with your assessment in that there was 174 years of precedent of God being ok in the public square until the 1947 case of Engal v. Vitale and then Romer v. Board of Ed. Before these cases there was NOTHING saying God could not be supported in government or by government. It only said you could not have a government founded and mandated religion.

Jefferson appropriated federal monies for the building of a Catholic church for the indians as well as more money to pay for a Priest to that parish. Wonder what the lying lefties would think of Bush for doing the same os Jefferson who they claim gave us separation of church and state, falsely implyi ng his letter to the Danbury Baptist is a government mandate applied as it is today.

[Defiant]

It only said you could not have a government founded and mandated religion.

Correction, it only says that "Congress" cannot establish a religion. The states were free to do so, and did, for 100 years or so in some cases.

[ICE-FLYER]

No correction needed here. It was Federal being spoken about.

In other words, we agree.

The states did not fully separate themselves from the fact that many had a state sponsored religion for quite some time. It was Madison and Jefferson leading the charge in Virginia to dis-establish the Anglican church there. Now is it not funny that they did so? I do not think it was out of any cause other than that link that the Anglican church had with the King Of England more than its Christian influences. But they DID get that done.

Other states followed but not a one of them did so under the First Amendment clause at all. They chose to for equality purposes and as such they all can be supported or not at all.

The ACLU has foisted a great lie upon a public with all to helpful anti-Christian bigots who have the school systems teaching the lie over and over and over.

The founders made this clear. And we had 174 years of precedent that all of a sudden in 1947 had one phrase thrown into the mix from a letter and not from any government document. Now we can not same the name of Jesus at the end of our prayers in the chaplaincy of the USAF. Utterly disgusting.

[Amendment10]

I would only disagree with your assessment in that there was 174 years of precedent of God being ok in the public square until the 1947 case of Engal v. Vitale and then Romer v. Board of Ed. Before these cases there was NOTHING saying God could not be supported in government or by government. It only said you could not have a government founded and mandated religion.

The problem that I have with your statement above is that your seemingly generic reference to the government raises the question as to if you are aware that the Founders made major distinctions between federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 1st and 10th Amendments. Or are you aware of this division of powers?

The problem is that when people are unaware of the division of federal and state powers it makes it easy for crooked judges to fool them into thinking that the establishment clause of the federal Constitution was also intented to apply to the states.