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

Worldnetdaily ^ | 08/26/2003 | Alan Keyes

[tpaine]

Obviously you can't understand the point made about political compromise.
-- We may have to leave it at that. I'm no good at special ed.

[tpaine]

Behind the Lines in CA wrote:
"Please enlighten me as to how a State can prosecute a felony by information -- "



What gives you the idea that I'm defending that particular legal point?

[djf]

YOU were the one that mentioned it protecting the official state religions, not me. Nine of the original 13 colonies had official religions. So all I'm asking you, sir, is how did that get absolutely reversed to mean a ban on all religions? And you can cease coughing up your special ed crap, because my bookshelf is full, I have assembled and read a lot of a cd containing hundreds of thousands of pages of common law documents, and the last IQ test I took showed it near 160. So please explain the reversal.

[Ginosko]

The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or due process of law,

The word ‘liberty’ there seems to have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a meaning far beyond what was intended. The amendment was meant to ensure that blacks and whites were treated equally under the law, particularly in the Southern states after the Civil War. It certainly did not mean that the Supreme Court was to be the sole judge of all that constitutes 'human liberty'. That matter was explicitly left to the states with the proviso they treated all people equally. So what the court has done in effect is to expand its authority over the states without so much as even a whimper and to usurp the power of the legislative branch of the Federal Government. It is not at all certain that the reach of the 14th Amendment extends to the 1st Amendment. It is certain, however, that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not require "a perfect separation of church and state, that there be no vestige of religion in the state or in public life or in government." It seems this overstepping of the jurisdiction of the court needs to be rectified and rectified soon.

[tpaine]

You're confused. Nothing was 'reversed' & there is no "ban on all religions".

The 1st has always applied to all levels of government, dispite the compromise wording about 'congress'.

-- Which wording, in any case, was made moot by the clear words of the 14th. -- Learn to live with them. Life liberty, & property rights are worth protecting.

In fact, why would any rational conservative WANT the states to have the power to violate our BOR's?

[tpaine]

You 'got it' kid. Congrats.

[tpaine]

I agree in this respect, -- that courts have, in effect, expanded their authority over the states without so much as even a whimper to usurp the power of their legislative branchs.

To me, this is a political failure, due to our overpowering republocrat system, -- not a constitutional one.

[tpaine]

What question?

[tpaine]

In fact, why would any rational conservative WANT the states to have the power to violate our BOR's?
-tpaine-

Because the alternative is the beast the federal government has become.
-behind CA-

States violating rights somehow stop the feds from doing so?
Get a grip on reality.

[Ginosko]

It is true that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is applicable to state governments through incorporation in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is equally true that the 14th Amendment was never intended to make the federal 'Establishment Clause' binding on the states. Nor did the Framers ever intend for the 1st Amendment to create a perfect separation of church and state. Neither was it ever intended to eliminate religion from government or public life or even create an atmosphere of neutrality regarding such.

[tpaine]

I'm not a lawyer. Ask Chancy.

[djf]

Correct. here have been quite a number of fallacious statements made here.

All states were bound therby, and were well aware of this constitutional fact.

Not true.
In O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323, 332, it was stated that as a general question it has always been ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply to the States.
In Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, it was said that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution operates exclusively in restraint of Federal power, and has no application to the States.

Both of these cases were after the fourteenth amendment.

[rwfromkansas]

Actually, 34 is posted by a person that disagrees with you...

[Ginosko]

I think it would be helpful to explore specifically how the incorporation principle of the 14th extends its reach to the 'establishment clause' when as Keyes correctly observes, "No language in the 14th Amendment deals with this power of government."