Since the drafting of our Constitution, atheists have enjoyed every immunity and privilege guaranteed to those of religious faith. No matter how offended they may feel, atheists cannot claim persecuted status. From politics to education, from business to charity, they have been actively involved in virtually every aspect of American life.
Only Judaism and Christianity have a doctrine of God as Spirit and Truth, Who created the world in order to invite these creatures endowed with intelligence and conscience to enter into friendship with Him. Only the Jewish and Christian God made human beings free, halts the power of Caesar at the boundaries of the human soul, and has commissioned human beings to build civilizations worthy of the liberty He has endowed in them. So high is this God's valuation of human liberty of conscience that, even though He has launched a divinely commissioned religion in history (in two Covenants, Jewish and Christian), He would not have either of these religions imposed by force on anyone. So devoted were the American founders to this understanding of religious liberty that, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography (1821), the authors of the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom refrained from mentioning the exact name of the "holy author of our religion." Here is Jefferson's explanation for the omission:
Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
Like it or not, we are at the mercy of a judicial oligarchy.
Since the judicial oligarchy knows there will be no interest in Impeach SCOTUS - WorldNetDaily.com, Farah, 3 July 03 or any other provisions within the Consitution to hold them accoutable for their errors.
This notion may seem a bit unorthodox, but the Bill of Rights was never intended to be binding upon the various states. If you take the time to read the text of the First Amendment, you will find that it specifically refers to the federal government. ("Congress shall make no law...")
The most obvious difference between the two due process clauses is that the Fifth Amendment clause as it binds the Federal Government coexists with a number of other express provisions in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing fair procedure and non-arbitrary action, such as jury trials, grand jury indictments, and nonexcessive bail and fines, as well as just compensation, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment clause as it binds the States has been held to contain implicitly not only the standards of fairness and justness found within the Fifth Amendment's clause but also to contain many guarantees that are expressly set out in the Bill of Rights. Due Process
Justice Scalia calls his own interpretive philosophy "textualism," and distinguishes this term from the popular term "strict constructionism." He writes: "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Scalia cites an example of an unreasonably strict construction in Smith v. United States (1993), a recent case from which he dissented. "But," Scalia says, "while the good textualist is not a literalist, neither is he a nihilist. Words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible." As an example of unreasonably loose construction, Scalia cites the mass of cases, beginning with Dred Scott v. Sanford, in which the Supreme Court has defended substantive liberties not mentioned within the text of the Constitution's Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. A Matter of Interpretation
. . . .The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law.... Justice Henry Brown - Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Because the Fourteenth Amendment specifically addressed the states, it drastically expanded the reach of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court used the amendment to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights to state governments. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment is cited more often in modern litigation than any other. In fact, many constitutional scholars believe that, through its wide scope and promise of equality, the Fourteenth Amendment created a new Constitution. National Constitution Center: Interactive Constitution
"Separation of church and state"-
Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society." -- George Washington Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate?