William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm ^ | William Rehnquist

[aruanan]

"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)]."

It's sad to see that even here the misquoting of the First Amendment has been taken for granted. There is no clause in the First Amendment against "establishment of religion". The clause is against a law passed respecting "an establishment of religion", that is, against a law giving preferential treatment to "an establishment of religion," commonly known as a church.

[ohioman]

(Sarcasm on) Oh yeah...and we all know how you are so much more qualified to interpret the law than the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[aruanan]

    Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730.

What Madison said.

[Hacksaw]

Well done!

When will the Shysters With Shingles who haunt the judge Moore threads show up to tell us how Renquist is stupid and they know more about the issue than him?

[LiteKeeper]

The source web site is a gold mine of information. Recommend you go there and explore! Highly recommend!!!

[CGVet58]

excellent link

[aruanan]

An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Excellent! Thanks for posting this dissent.

[Republic]

...The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

and

The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.

This good judge got it right! And so has President Bush in his advancement of governmental aid to religious groups serving our nation thru food, shelter, counseling, love and provision of job skill training.

This is one long read...full of historical reasoning as our Bill of Rights and 1st Amendment were authored.

This should be required reading in EVERY government class. It breaths intelligence and common sense.

Thanks for posting this.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[tpaine]

I see a flaw in his argument. Feel free to differ.


My 'qualifications' are not the issue here. - Or shouldn't be.

[Sacajaweau]

Prior to the Constitution, each of the original states drew up their own Constitution. They can be found at the Avalon Project. Basically, each contains a Bill of Rights in addition to the "Rules of Government" for the individual state. "Free & Independent" states would now be joined under a Federal Constitution.

[freedomcrusader]

It says "...favored or established, by law,"

Tell me where on the books in Alabama is the law that Judge Moore miraculously enacted without the aid of the other two branches of government merely by putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of a building?

[VRWCmember]

The lines above totally destroy William Rehnquist's contention that "Separation of Church and State" was an unwanted 'myth'.

No, those lines reiterate his point that the establishment clause was a prohibition against the congress passing any laws which would designate on particular religious sect or denomination as legally preferred over others.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bump to the top (thanks, Sir G).

[MrConfettiMan]

Bump for a later read.

[cdrw]

outstanding post

[E Rocc]

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.

Reynolds was more than 100 years old when this decision was written. Interestingly, Madison, referenced next by Rehnquist, used similar language to Jefferson in personal writings, explicitly stating that the Constitution strongly guaranteed a separation between religion and government.

"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

Madison most strongly disagreed:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Finally, note that this was a dissent. Rehnquist is right on most issues but he is quite wrong on this one.

-Eric

[Liz]

BTTT

[William Tell]

From the article: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'

This statement provides yet another example of flawed logic by those who seek "penumbras" in the Constitution.

I characterize this logical flaw as the confusion of "cause" and "effect". The "effect" described above is that of erecting a wall of separation between church and State. This "effect" was to be "caused" by prohibiting Congress from passing certain laws. That is all that was intended by our Founder's support of the Bill of Rights. A further effect intended by the prohibition against Congress passing certain laws was that everyone would be assured the free exercise of religion. Now the liberals wish to restrict Judge Moore's free exercise of religion by removing a monument over which he previously had control.

This example of logical confusion is similar to the liberals' misreading of the Second Amendment. The "effect" desired was the continuing ability to have a well-regulated Militia. The way this "effect" was to be "caused" was to mandate that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Here there is no limitation to just laws of Congress.

Since the language of the First Amendment protects free speech by simply prohibiting Congress from passing laws, there is more justification for believing that individual states may prohibit free speech than that they may infringe the right to keep and bear arms. I know of no reason to believe that States could quarter soldiers in people's homes or that States could impose excessive bail. There is no presumption that these constraints applied only to the federal government.

[wardaddy]

They're too busy dancing on our temporary defeat.

Did you notice how their glee that Rush was going to come out and join their interpretation of the constitution didn't quite play out as hoped...lol.

The only thing Rush said of any consolation to them was that Moore had to obey the court. He said unequivocally that the Courts were wrong.