Posted on 05/10/2014 11:00:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
I have argued since I first began writing and speaking on this issue that the First Amendment restrains only the actions of Congress. The first word in the First Amendment, after all, is the word "Congress." "Congress shall make no law..."
The Founders quite intentionally were not imposing restraints on what a state could do in offering prayers before legislative assemblies, or what a city could do in erecting Ten Commandments monuments, or what a school could do in offering prayer and Bible reading over the intercom or at graduation. Congress and Congress alone is bound down by the chains of the First Amendment.
This has enormous implications for public policy, because it means that the only entity in America that can violate the First Amendment is Congress. A state can't, a city can't, and a school official or student most certainly can't. State constitutions may have something to say about what those entities can do, but the federal government, including the judiciary, has precisely zero constitutional or moral authority to intervene in such matters.
That, my friends, is freedom. Freedom for states, cities and schools to decide matters of religious expression for themselves without black-robed tyrants on the other side of the country deciding such things for them.
Thus the recent Supreme Court ruling, allowing cities and, in fact, all government bodies to offer invocations in Jesus' name before meetings is a good ruling. But the matter never even should have been before the Court in the first place. The First Amendment prohibits any kind of federal interference in religious expression whatsoever.
And while in many ways I have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this topic, I now find there are two of us crying out in the desert of out-of-control jurisprudence. Clarence Thomas...
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Thank you and I am corrected. It would have helped had I read the underlined last sentence from the Amendment before posting.
If I had a nickel for all the times that I’ve done the same thing.............;-)
so the feds cannot violate the bill of rights, but the states can.
Doesn’t make sense.
Why all the restrictions on things like local police activities, cruel and unusual, need for warrants etc?
...and as that applies to me as well, we would both be independently wealthy.
Wouldn’t that be nice? :-)
The bastard is there to stay for 2 years or more if he so chooses.
Oh, yes it would my FRiend.
You don't like what ruling?
The house must meet its responsibility. Let the senate do what they’ll do.
Sorry about the caps. I was being emotional and feeling frustrated about the whole mess America is in at the time. Yes, I would rather Boehnor bring Articles of Impeachment against the arrogant jackass instead of the lawsuit he is threatening. Of course we would be totally in favor of impeachment. And, it is the responsibility of the House to do it. As opposed to clinton’s impeachment, the house has a strong leg to stand on for an Article regarding Abuse of Power. Then it would fall far short in the sinate and the Republicans would be the big hate mongers and racists as usual. That would be the result. Then he would really accelerate his dictatorial actions, knowing he can never be removed from office for at least the remainder of his term.
No problem
freepgards
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the 2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [state laws regulating the conduct of public parades] do not have this effect.Federal courts deliberately ignored this part of the Presser case, even stating that the case stands for the exact OPPOSITE proposition. Such is the mendacity of the federal courts vs. the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS knew this was going on, too, and chose to allow it to continue for decades. To this day, the "law" (as asserted by the mendacious courts) is that Presser stood for the proposition that states could infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
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.