Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We've got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God's existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children's education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
Today's reading is from the book of Libertarians, chapter one: The government giveth, the government taketh away. Indian giver be the name of the government.
Indeed, tpaine -- they had seen enuf of "the divine right of kings." The DoI is full of complaints against royal privilege/abuse. Which is why, in our system, the people are nominally sovereign not, say, the president.
Thanks for the great essay/post! Not much to disagree with there! (Are you surprised? :^) )
Thanks Betty. - Your honesty doesn't surprise me, but I'm always amazed at how many disagree with the base principles behind our establishment/religious test clauses. [again, agreeing that prohibitionists have abused those clauses
Yes indeedy, they sure have!
Clearly, the Framers must have thought religious liberty (the right of conscience) of preeminent importance -- even though these same men would prohibit "religious tests" for federal public office in the main body of the Constitution.
Betty, notice my 'bold' quote from that test clause of Art VI; the clause clearly says that no test shall ever be required for "-- any office or public Trust under the United States. --"
-- State & local officials hold many offices of public trust in the USA. The clause applies to them, just as it applies to fed officials.
At the same time, however, all federal oaths of office require the candidate to "swear (or affirm)" his allegience to the Constitution before assuming his public duties. Always -- at least until the coming of Ralph Ellison, who demanded a Koran be made available to him for the purpose of his Oath (an unfortunate accommodation, IMHO, for it put a government institution in the position of discriminating/referee-ing among religious creeds) -- a Bible is involved for the purpose of the Oath....
Betty, many binding oaths are made without a bible, - for instance my military oath was sworn with simply a raised hand.
This instantly tells us that JudeoChristian moral law is the foundation and touchstone of our system of justice.
Greek, Roman, Norman, English common law, even Iroquois tribal law was mentioned by founders as being influential on drafting Constitutional law.
I mean, we don't ask public officers to swear on Marvel comics, or The DaVinci Code! This fact ought to moot the issue of whether the Ten Commandments should be removed from court houses (particularly the Supreme Court) and other public venues; or that "In God we trust" be removed from our currency; or the "under God" provision from the Pledge of Allegience....
The two -- federal government recognition of religious freedom and no religious tests for federal office -- are not in conflict: Both are reconciled in the idea that the federal government may not favor any particular religious creed over any other, but that religion in general is to be free to flourish.
State & local governments are equally obligated to recognize "religious freedom and no religious tests for office" under the provisions of Art VI's Law of the Land clause; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"
Nor can state & local gov'ts favor any particular religious creed over any other, so that religion in general is free to flourish.
The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
The so-called "wall of separation" between church and state is an illusion in the fevered brains of Left-progressive, positivist judicial theoreticians. It has no real Constitutional basis.
I thought we agreed that legislators were forbidden to write laws "respecting an establishment of religion" -- while protecting its free exercise. -- And no religious test could be required as "Qualification to any Office or public Trust" in the USA.
Our founders had seen enough of state sanctioned men of God, who attempted to rule as if they had the power of God.
Now you disagree, -- and say that no such 'wall' can separate church & state?
“””But I wanted to see what seemed to go wrong with so many old timers giving our beloved leader such a hard time.””
May I?
The malcontents did not give JR a hard time - he made his case and would not appease their namby-pamby.
Many old timers lost their courage and fled the battlefield. Others self-destructed in a hail of narcissistic righteousness.
JR is not my beloved leader - I do not do cults;)
kindly
sod
Great Post Betty,
A point that I think also needs made is the loss in the distinction between laws and statutes.
Law is immutable. Law is absolute and as our Declaration writer and signers understood was “created” and “inalienable”.
“The laws of Nature AND of Nature’s God”.
Man does not make law, nor can he change law.
Man makes statutes. These statutes are either in harmony with and supportive of Natural Self Evident Law of God, or said statutes are in conflict and rebellion with the Law.
And man has again a duty to disregard unlawful orders (statutes).
All of these core principles seem to have been abandoned by even so much as those who declare themselves leaders in our conservative movement.
We would all do well to remind them as often as we are able... and after the effect which begun on this thread, I think we are well on that path.
= )
Applause! Beautiful post, dearest sister in Christ!
BTTT
Still going eh?
:)
I'm all for it :-) But, it's about time for another cookie recipe, don't you think?
The First Amendment has to be read in 18th C. language. The classical interpretation is narrow: that the federal government is prohibited from establishing a national religion like the Church of England. Establishment of a religion was reserved to the several states and to the people. Only quite recently, in the 20th C. liberal era, has legal opinion broadened to interpret the clause as prohibiting any federal spending for religious purposes. That view is liberalism, not constitutionalism.
The Bill of Rights dealt very specifically with limitations on federal powers. The First Amendment is not to be read without reference to the Tenth, which reserved powers prohibited to the federal government to the several states and to the people. The states did exercise that power. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Georgia and Maryland all passed taxes specifically to support the Christian religion. Individuals generally were given the right to earmark their taxes to the church of their choice.
“it’s about time for another cookie recipe, don’t you think?”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
NGZ is a good cookie baker....
:)
I’ve been called a lot of things, but good cookie baker is a first!!!LMAO!!
ROFL
Shortbread is one of the simplest recipes in the world, and yet one of the easiest for a poor cook to ruin. False economy can kill its chances from the start, and "dressing up" can be its downfall.
While it's true that there are many recipes where margarine can safely substitute for butter, this is NOT one of those places. The distinctive flavor of shortbread depends most emphatically on butter. Nothing else will do. And it should be the freshest, sweetest, butter obtainable.
The creative cook who feels the recipe is too naked as it stands, and dresses it up with vanilla, eggs, nuts, chocolate chips, or what have you, may be creating something. But it won't be shortbread.
1 pound sweet butter [I prefer salted]
1 cup powdered sugar
3 cups sifted flour
1 cup rice flour
[You can use a fourth cup of sifted flour for this or 3/4 cup of corn starch. But rice flour is easy to find.]
Preheat oven to 375.*
Cream the butter and sugar. Blend well but don't overwork it. Gradually blend in the flour. Turn the dough onto a lightly floured board to pat out. For a traditional look, pat the dough into two circles about 3/4 inch thick. Pinch the edges and prick all over with a fork. Place on a baking sheet. If the day is warm, put dough in refrigerator or freezer half an hour before baking.
Bake shortbread five minutes at 375, then immediately turn the heat down to 300 and continue baking 45 to 60 minutes. When done, shortbread will be golden BUT NOT BROWNED AT ALL. Cut into wedges while still warm.
*I'm going go object to her oven directions because it ruined a batch in MY oven, which stayed too warm and browned the shortbread a lot. So, unless your oven is better behaved than mine, you could take the shortbread back out after five minutes at 375, and put it back when the oven is stable at 300. Bake longer if needed, till golden but not browned.
Shortbread cookies are not quite traditional, but are no sin against the recipe. Cut rounds from thinner dough. Shorten baking time accordingly, being careful not to brown the cookies.
See 18192. Meant to ping you on Nana’s dubious recommendation :-)
Article VI, stating that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, is about all the Constitution had to say about religion.
My quote shows it to apply to 'ANY office'. You simply deny the wording?
The Bill of Rights dealt very specifically with limitations on federal powers.
Your contention is unsupported by the actual language of any of the first ten amendments, nor the preamble. In fact the Preamble makes clear the BOR's are to be considered "as part of the said Constitution. --"
All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself. That term was Thomas Jefferson's, in a letter to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, during the ratification period. Rhode Island has a very long and noble history of religious toleration; the Jews evidently had been wondering whether their lot in life would be any better in a United States under a federal constitution. So TJ -- a champion of religious freedom and toleration and, thus, of the separation of church and state necessary to preserve them -- wrote back, with assurances that the proposed Constitution guarantees equal protection of Jews and freedom of religious conscience. He used the term "wall of separation" to make his point. But that seems to be a rather severe and highly simplified reduction of his full position WRT these matters.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters. I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment. But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'. It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason. In any case, attitudes of religious toleration have been widespread and customary in our society at all levels.
At least until very recent times.... When thanks to the popularity of "progressive ideas," religion itself is increasingly becoming what cannot be tolerated.
Your thoughts, dear tpaine?
Thank you so much for writing!
LOLOL!!! Amen to that, T'wit! Spoken like a true Lockean!
Yippee! Thank you. Now if we can find non-Chinese ingredients, we’ll be in shape.
All I'm saying is there is no "wall of separation" language in the Constitution itself.
My original point above was that the establishment clause, and the no religious test clause, -- clearly show that the founders did want such a separation. I thought you agreed.
We had this exchange:
Me: The Framers were very wise and very judicious in the reconciliation they thus achieved -- freedom for religious belief without any meddling or favoritism WRT religious matters by the [fed/state/local] government. This was the understanding that they deliberately enshrined in the Constitution.
You: We can agree, if you accept my 'bold' addition.
With all due respect for your prodigious knowledge of the Constitution, tpaine, and your keen meditation of it, I'm not sure I can accept your "'bold' addition," if by it you mean that the federal Constitution also applies to the state and local governments on religious matters.
I think its clear that our Law of the Land applies to State/local governments. -- Read Art VI on State constitutions & laws.
I think that's still an open question. I guess the answer depends on the reach of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th was enacted to clarify the erroneous 'states rights' insistence that Art VI did not apply to the States. It failed.
But after all this time, that is still unclear: At least it seems Supreme Court justices have been very choosey about what federally-recognized constitutional rights to "incorporate" under the 14th amendment for application to the States.
Yep, its clear that their whole 'incorporation' house of cards will fail if the 2nd is applied to States. --- Why conservatives -want- states to have the power to prohibit guns is sure unclear to me.
What is clear, however, is the federal Constitution envisions and, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, gives primacy to federal constitutional law; while at the same time, the Constitution also envisions a separation and balance of power between the federal government and the States'.
We agree again. Are you surprised?
It seems to me if the feds were to become overwhelmingly dominant in this sphere of power relations, then we'd probably have a totalitarian dictatorship on our hands. FWIW.
The feds are just as bound as state/local governments. It's up to 'we the people' to keep ALL gov'ts obeying the Constitution.
Plus recall that the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights were primarily designed to be assurances to the States that the feds would not transgress the States' own prerogatives, customs, and liberties in this regard.
And it worked, -- the feds didn't transgress, and the existing State religions withered away. -- By 1848, when the Mormons tried to enshrine a state religion in Utah's new Constitution, the concept was rejected. - Only republican forms of government were approved for admission to the Union.
It's an interesting, unresolved tension. Maybe it shouldn't ever be "finally resolved" for the above reason.
States have enormous powers to reject federal transgressions.
They do not do so for political reasons, not constitutional ones. -- Can you agree on this specific point?
My understanding is, and remains, that the original Constitution did not set conditions for state and local offices. The phrase "under the United States" means the federal government, not the several states.
> Your contention is unsupported by the actual language of any of the first ten amendments, nor the preamble. In fact the Preamble makes clear the BOR's are to be considered "as part of the said Constitution. --"
Well, of course they are part of the Constitution! Who said otherwise? They were added to enumerate certain liberties and rights for the several states and individuals, in order to make the Constitution ratifiable. Certainly they were meant to restrain the enumerated federal powers.
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.