Alan Keyes: On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says

Worldnetdaily ^ | 08/26/2003 | Alan Keyes

[Keyes2000mt]

Problems like this, left for very long without solution, raise the sombre spectre of national dissolution. This, the Congress has the constitutional means and duty to avoid. They should move to do so without delay.

Hope Congress is listening.

[syriacus]

I'm thinking of getting something like this to hang by my front door.

[Tax-chick]

Keyes bump! Oratory at its finest, whether one agrees with him or not (I do, usually). I have dreams of diagramming his sentences :-).

[Joe Brower]

"Hope Congress is listening."

Oh, they're listening, and watching too. Problem is, they don't have anywhere near the virtue and courage to invoke their legislative powers as described in the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 2, which states:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make".

As the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times". We most certainly do.

Thomas Jefferson saw the voracious tendencies of government when he stated "It is the natural order for government to grow and freedom to wane". In 1821, he also stated "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated".

We're there, folks.

[Aquamarine]

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there appears to be no lawful basis for any element of the federal government – including the courts – to act in this area.

BUMP!

[.45MAN]

WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[.45MAN]

PING

[steve50]

Selective states rights BBT

[Nephi]

Thanks for the post - this is a keeper!

[Sir Gawain]

It's a shame many freepers don't understand states' rights. This is precisely the reason local control of government causes the least friction. The Founders understood it, and de Tocqueville saw it in action and documented it.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[stuartcr]

It seems to me that the meaning of the Constitution is dependent upon how it's interpreted. Who, then, has the final word in how it is interpreted?

[tpaine]

"We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states. No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government."
-keyes-


This comment above is an absolute lie and Alan Keyes knows better, bump.

I'll be back.

[Sir Gawain]

Thomas Jefferson:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322

[MEGoody]

The SCOTUS has the final word on interpretation of the constitution, however, they refused to hear this case.

[Eastbound]

BTTT!

[Badray]

bump for later read

[Gritty]

It looks like Alan Keyes may have read your article on the "solution".

Either that, or he read the Constitution.

[moneyrunner]

The Constitution is a fairly short document, and is not beyond the comprehension of any educated person. The assumption that many make is that it is too complicated for any but legal experts (read lawyers) to interpret. These people are then willing to accept the most ridiculous and improbable pronouncements from supposed “experts,” known as the members of the Supreme Court.

As we have seen in the past, the Supremes have political agendas and will impose these agendas on the people if they are allowed to get away with it.

The answer to your question is: the final arbiters of the Constitution, as well as every law, are the people. It is the Supreme Court, not just the legislature that reads the election returns.

[nothingnew]

Excellent, AND the Correct wording for VI!

FMCDH