[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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.

[Eastbound]

BTTT!

[Badray]

bump for later read

[Gargantua]

I am well pleased to see Ambassador Keyes not only pointedly concurring with, but saying much more expansively and eloquently, what I said here only days ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967995/posts

There were some who disagreed with me, though I doubt they can effectively assail Alan Keyes' logic.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - PRINT out

[EBITDA]

I am a big fan of Alan Keyes and generally agree with his conclusions on this and most other issues. However, I am troubled by what might be a very narrow understanding of what the word 'respect' means in the conext of 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.'

There are three senses to the word 'respect' which may apply.
1.To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2.To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3.To relate or refer to; concern

Keyes argues for, at the Federal level, number 3. Congress simply cannot act relating to or concerning the establishment of religion. He says the Constitution "forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all."

Perhaps.

However, if we consider the first definition of 'respect'--to show deference--we may argue that Congress merely cannot show favoritism for one religion over another. I am not a historian and don't know exactly what the original intent is here, but if it is the deference interpretation, then this complicates things a bit. I do know that the big concern was that the founding fathers were not favorably disposed to a 'state' instituted religion. Thus they forbade the state from 'establishing' one. Any act which favors one over another could be seen, loosely, as an establishment of the one favored. (Bear with me, I am NOT a membert of the ACLU.)

So, if this is merely a protection against establishment of a state religion, Congress is not forbidden from acting on matters of religion but would have to find a way to be utterly and completely inclusive of all religions.

The practical effect may be, in lieu of such absurd inclusiveness, that leaving the issue to the states is the best option. So my own conclusion would be, despite my quibble with the meaning of the word 'respect', the same as Keyes. This is a states' rights issue as emotionally-charged as that is.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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.

Congress was listening before Keyes speech:

• Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
• Religious Liberties Restoration Act
• Pledge Protection Act of 2003 .

[Sloth]

Portions of that [14th] amendment do indeed restrict the legislative powers of the states, but they refer only to actions that affect the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons. The first clause of the First Amendment in no way deals with persons, however, but rather – in concert with the 10th Amendment – secures the right of the states and the people to be free from the dictates of federal law respecting an establishment of religion.

I like Keyes, but he is simply wrong. The Bill of Rights applies to individual persons as well as 'the people' as a whole -- otherwise we are nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[aruanan]

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

It's really disgusting to see how far the revisionists have shifted the debate away from the actual text that such a title is used. I hope it wasn't Keyes who wrote it. The First Amendment does not talk about "the establishment of religion" or "establishing a religion" or "establishing religion" or "promoting religion" or "allowing religious ideas or images to be depicted in a public area".

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

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.

Congressional testimony many years before Keyes speech:

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution