What Would Jefferson Advise Today’s Supreme Court About the Little Sisters of the Poor?

Cascade Policy Institute ^ | March 22, 2016 | Kathryn Hickock

[Twotone]

In 1804 an Ursuline nun in New Orleans asked Thomas Jefferson to clarify in writing her religious community’s right to retain their property and to continue their ministries without government interference following the Louisiana Purchase. As French Catholic Louisiana was being incorporated into the Anglo-Protestant United States, the nuns were concerned about the status of their institutions under U.S. law. President Jefferson assured her that the government would not interfere with the sisters’ property, ministries, and way of life. In a letter dated May 15, 1804, he wrote:

“I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution….The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.”

[Noumenon]

Probably something having to do with ropes and scaffolds.

[rockrr]

I don’t know about Jefferson, who was famous for defying Congress and SCOTUS with the Louisiana Purchase, but Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

[kaehurowing]

The whole point of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” was that it was supposed to protect churches and individuals from the federal government, not the other way around.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Can’t you just see nuns in full habits charging up the steps of Congress with rifles...

... and steel rulers

[infool7]

The nuns shouldn’t have to do that but the point is fast approaching when strong men will stand up for the little sisters and woe to those doing the persecuting because it won’t be the kindness of rulers on knuckles that will be brought to bear.

[DoughtyOne]

[Mark17]

Probably something having to do with ropes and scaffolds.

I would say that is true, plus the mention of some place where the sun don't shine. 😆😀

[Mrs. Don-o]

I have always held as sacred the blessed first five words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...”

[Jacquerie]

The Left cannot allow any law higher than itself. Man as god.

[Pollster1]

The answer is obvious and comes well before any specifics regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor. If Jefferson avoided a heart attack or a stroke over seeing what the government he created has become, he would start writing again. He would not even change many words:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . .

We have been "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable" than we perhaps should have. It may be close to the time when we need restore our government. It may be close, very close, to the time when the Tree of Liberty will have to be watered again.

[TEXOKIE]

Repeating post:To: Twotone
The answer is obvious and comes well before any specifics regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor. If Jefferson avoided a heart attack or a stroke over seeing what the government he created has become, he would start writing again. He would not even change many words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government . . .

We have been “more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable” than we perhaps should have. It may be close to the time when we need restore our government. It may be close, very close, to the time when the Tree of Liberty will have to be watered again.

11 posted on March 26, 2016 at 1:25:27 PM CDT by Pollster1 (”A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.” - Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So very well said.... and digressing a little, FWIW if my recollection is correct, Jefferson also suffered at the hands of those who smeared his wife. Dirty off-limits politics has unfortunately been the norm since almost the beginning. We were indeed amazingly fortunate to have as our first President someone who had near universal respect and admiration.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Recently a YouTube video of Mr. Justice Scalia was posted as an FR thread. And in listening to his discussion I was struck by Scalia’s description of Congress as “sailing close to the wind,” alluding to the congressional practice of, on the one hand, providing for accelerated judicial review of a new statute to determine if it passes SCOTUS muster, and on the other of placing in a statute fallback provisions to take effect in the event that SCOTUS finds the preferred language to be unconstitutional.

Yet the Bill of Rights was not ratified to be a ceiling over our rights. It was ratified as a floor under them:

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whenever Congress admits that the law is constitutionally dubious, SCOTUS should dismiss out of hand the conceit that the face-value meaning of the statute might be constitutional.

[Barnacle]

This article is about freedom of religion, Thomas Jefferson and the Little Sisters of the Poor, an organization I am familiar with.

How about reserving gutter comments for another thread, in respect for Easter if nothing else?

[rockrr]

Please feel free to point the “gutter” aspect of my post.

[BuddhaBrown]

"Jefferson ... he would start writing again. He would not even change many words: "

Not 'many words' perhaps.

But I bet TJeff might be re-re-thinking that 'happiness' bit as opposed to the more Lockean property-oriented version of the concept Tom was attempting to embody in the DOI.

Property is, after all, the point of the article.

It is mentioned by the great one, TJ, in the first sentence of his response to the holy sisters above.

[Albion Wilde]

bump for later reading

[Mrs. Don-o]

You can get condoms in any truckstop, grocery, student health center, convenience store, heck, every Bubba´s Beer and Bait place, at prices starting around 25 - 50 cents apiece, when they aren´t showered on you perfectly free with little Valentines hearts attached bearing a message of congratulations for being a fine hygienic citizen. Everyone knows this, even the kids in them li´l short school buses that go to them Special Classes with Pop-Up Picture Books.

Contraceptives couldn´t be more ubiquitous if they came in M&M packages.

Wal-Mart or Walgreens have oral contraceptives for $27 for a 3-month supply. That´s $9 a month.

Sheesh. And it´s a Constitutional Crisis if some employers don´t want to subsidize this?

This is worth destroying the First Amendment? This is worth destroying the Little Sisters of the Poor?

[Noumenon]

It’s all about pushing the boundaries of coercion and control. The will to power in all of it’s grim and malignant application.