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

Worldnetdaily ^ | 08/26/2003 | Alan Keyes

[tpaine]

I have done the research. Keyes is 100% right.
-RWfK-


If you've done the research, [big if] it should be easy for you to refute the documented history, and conclusions as posted at #34.
A sample:




" -- the First Amendment binds the federal government: "Congress shall make no law ... ."

"As a general statement of religious liberty, however, the First Amendment also binds state governments."
"For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law."
-#34-

[ninenot]

Bookmark and Ping

[GulliverSwift]

Tpaine is a libertarian whiner who is fond of making snippy comments and never defending them with any sort of evidence. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned for his persistent trolling.

He likes to think of himself as a Jeffersonian but Jefferson was no libertarian.

[commish]

WOW - I am giving a presentation on Federalism and National Supremecy Vs States Rights in my American government class tonight at Troy State Univ in Montgomery, Al.

I was going to mention the 10 commandents issue as part of the States Rights protion of my Presentation. Alan's Article will now be part of my presentation.

[GulliverSwift]

Oh, and Thomas Paine was no libertarian, either. More of a libertarian socialist.

Serious, reasoned libertarians are a pleasure to discuss things with but tpaine is not one of them.

[aruanan]

If you read exactly what it says, it looks to me like it means that Congress can't MAKE you follow a religion, nor can it STOP you from practicing your religion.

Well, no. If you read exactly what it says, it means that Congress can't give preferential treatment to an establishment of religion nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion--ie., participation in a religious establishment.

[aruanan]

Thanks for the details.

[tpaine]

You are daft. - A quote from your post #34 refutes Keyes point on the 14th:

" -- the First Amendment also binds state governments. For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: "No state shall deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law."

The 1st, of course, has always bound the states, under the supremacy clause of Art.IV, Sec.4... The 14th was only needed to clarify the issue raised by the erronous Barron decision.

[tpaine]

GulliverSwift is a whiner who is fond of making snippy comments and never defending them with any sort of evidence. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned for his persistent trolling.

[tpaine]

Personal attacks are supposed to be limited to the back room.

[GulliverSwift]

It's curious that you are using the same techniques used by liberals (misreading of 14th amendment) to justify limitless government expansion and involvment.

But then again, that's no surprise. Even if one were to apply your erroneous view of the 14th to the Moore case, there would still be no case for government action since the federal (or state as you would have it) government is only proscribed from making laws concerning particular religious organizations.

[GulliverSwift]

You obviously didn't read #34 very carefully. The portion which you quoted out of context is a discussion of Supreme Court rulings in the 1940s and how they departed from prior jurisprudence and previous government practices.

---

Government officials predicated some of their laws and policies directly on Christian teachings. Many of the first state schools and universities had mandatory courses in religion and compulsory attendance at daily chapel and Sunday worship. State prisons, reformatories, orphanages and asylums taught basic Christian beliefs and values. Polygamy, prostitution, pornography and other sexual offenses against Christian morals were prohibited. State marriage and divorce laws generally followed Christian commonplaces. Blasphemy was still occasionally prosecuted. It was a commonplace of 19th-century American legal thought, made famous by Justice Joseph Story, that "Christianity is a part of the common law."


Enter the Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court, after some tepid interventions in the 1920s and 1930s, responded forcefully to the plight of religious dissenters. In the landmark cases of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court incorporated the First Amendment free-exercise and establishment clauses into the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. On its face, the Court held, the First Amendment binds the federal government: "Congress shall make no law ... ."

As a general statement of religious liberty, however, the First Amendment also binds state governments. For religious liberty is part of the body, the corpus, of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: "No state shall deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law."

By so incorporating the First Amendment religion clauses into the 14th Amendment due-process clause, the Supreme Court accomplished what the Blaine Amendment (1876) and 15 other proposed amendments to the Constitution could not accomplish. It created a national law on religious freedom enforceable by the federal courts against federal, state, and local governments alike. In 150-plus First Amendment cases decided after 1940, the Supreme Court took firm control of the American experiment in religious freedom, with lower federal courts and most state courts following its lead.
---

[djf]

The preamble refutes your assertions.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, (djf note: meaning the powers of the federal government) that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

Then, very first item:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights are to be construed as granting additional powers to government. The are a "Bill of RIGHTS" not a "Bill of POWERS". They preserve the access to the common law.

[tpaine]

It's curious that you are using the same techniques used by liberals (misreading of 14th amendment) to justify limitless government expansion and involvment.

The purpose of the 14th is to protect our individiual rights from violations by ALL levels of government, fed/state/local. It's curious indeed that you can't understand that simple point.

But then again, that's no surprise. Even if one were to apply your erroneous view of the 14th to the Moore case, there would still be no case for government action since the federal (or state as you would have it) government is only proscribed from making laws concerning particular religious organizations.

Keyes says:

"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-

[GulliverSwift]

The purpose of the 14th is to protect our individiual rights from violations by ALL levels of government, fed/state/local. It's curious indeed that you can't understand that simple point.

The 14th was designed to protect individuals' rights. But only rights that were specifically adumbrated in the prior law and jurisprudence. The first amendment does not give anyone the right to demand the banning of all forms of religion from public life, nor does any provision of the constitution, nor did any court decision preceding the 14th's ratification.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The first clause is a restriction on the powers of the federal government, and has nothing to do with the individual. The latter (and here I disagree with Keyes) is an affirmation of an individual's freedom to practice the faith of his choosing. So, even if you were to apply the 14th to the states, that would actually do nothing to support your belief that Judge Moore should take down his rock.

Neither provision says anything about whether or not some state official can put up a decalogue or not. Really, the issue is quite overblown. Hanging some Ten Commandments on a wall is really a victimless "crime." Nobody's interests are harmed by having them on the wall. 99% of all Alabamians would never even know of their existence.

[tpaine]

You are simply ignoring the existence of the supremacy clause. The BOR's when ratified became the Law of the Land.
All states were bound therby, and were well aware of this constitutional fact.

The bill of rights were made to restrain all levels of our governments fed /state/local, from violating individual rights.

Sure, only congress is specified for the 'make no law' of the 1st amendment, precisely because some states had official religions they would not politically abandon.
It was a compromise wording on a delicate subject, as per the slavery issue.

But clearly the rest of the BOR's apply to the individual rights of people, --- and in two instances, states are mentioned.

The 6th enumerates how criminal prosecutions are to be held in state courts, in detail.

The 10th says that certain powers are prohibited to states.

[djf]

So, because some states had official religions, the first amendment is directed towards congress, but that somehow, magically got turned into something that can deny any religious expression whatever?

Nonsense.

Read it again. Go out and buy "Hooked on Phonics" or something. It is what is says it is. Congress may pass no law, one way or the other.

[tpaine]

Really, the issue is quite overblown. Hanging some Ten Commandments on a wall is really a victimless "crime."
-gulliver-


Indeed it is.
It's only a 'crime' in the way Moore made it into a political teapot tempest.