Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Missed The Point {Charley Reese}
King Features Syndicate, Inc. ^ | 09/01/2003 | Charley Rese

Posted on 09/01/2003 3:56:08 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park

King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Charley Reese


Missed The Point
09/01/2003

The people on both sides of the flap over a monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court building have missed the point entirely.

It's not about state religion or about acknowledging God. It's about jurisdiction. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives a federal judge the authority to say how the state of Alabama should decorate the lobby of its courthouse.

If you will read the First Amendment, you will note that it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Alabama doesn't have a Congress. The historical fact is that the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions on the federal government. If the states wished to have a state religion, they were free to do so.

It wasn't until after America's French Revolution, sometimes mistakenly called the Civil War and Reconstruction, that the federal government decided that the original confederation would be replaced by a national government. For a while, the federal government paid lip service to states' rights when it was convenient, but in recent times even lip service has been reduced to an occasional whisper.

Nevertheless, it is foolish in the extreme for proponents of the monument to run to one federal judge in the vain hope that he will overrule another federal judge. The correct way to fight judicial usurpation of power, which is what we have here, is to argue for a return to the original meaning of the Constitution. The fact that a set of corrupt politicians decided in the 19th century to undo the work of the American Revolution is no reason for Americans in the 21st century to accept that as the final status quo.

Of course, no rational person would conclude that a reproduction of the Ten Commandments constitutes establishing a religion, no matter where they are displayed. But rationality is rarely found on the federal bench. Remember, the recipients of these lifetime patronage appointments are just lawyers with political connections. They are not gods, though many of them act as if they were, and the overwhelming majority of them are not scholars. Some are not even intelligent.

Thanks to wacky federal-court rulings, however, there is much confusion on the subject of religion. I heard one secular jerk say, "Well, what would you say if someone wanted to put a monument to the Torah in the courthouse?" Dearly beloved, the Ten Commandments are from the Torah. They have nothing to do with Christianity per se. These basic rules of good behavior — prohibiting murder, perjury, adultery and theft — are the moral basis of our laws, as well as of the laws of most countries.

Moreover, how can any logical person say that a monument in a lobby is "establishing a religion," but chaplains for the armed forces and for the House and the Senate are not? The Constitution, like any other historical document, must be read in the context of its own times. The issue the Founding Fathers had faced was that the British Empire had an official church, the Anglican. Many European countries recognized the Roman Catholic Church as the official state church.

If you read the arguments of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison against state religion, they were arguing that it was not proper to tax a Baptist to pay the salary of an Anglican priest or vice versa. Nowhere did they argue that acknowledgement of and reverence for God should be banished from all public venues.

The words of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation, clearly show that they acknowledged God. Heck, the very foundation of the American Revolution's philosophy is religious. Jefferson argued that rights were inalienable because they came from the Creator, not from government or any social contract.

That's a very important point too many Americans have overlooked. Government cannot give you rights, because anything a government gives it can take away, and the definition of rights is things that cannot be justly taken away. Nowhere will you find the Founding Fathers crediting government with giving anybody any rights. The role of government, as Jefferson stated, is to protect rights granted by God.

It is even incorrect to speak of "constitutional rights." The Constitution does not give anyone any rights. It merely prohibits the government from abrogating or abridging rights the people already have. That, too, is clear from the text if you read it.

Americans clearly need to study their own Revolution. That way, they might be able to distinguish its principles from those of the Marxist revolution, which frankly is the guiding set of principles for many American politicians and intellectuals — especially the neoconservatives — these days.

© 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

at King Features


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; charleyreese; charleyrese
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
All, Charley "gets it". Peace and love, George.
1 posted on 09/01/2003 3:56:08 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
He's one of the few who do get it.
2 posted on 09/01/2003 3:59:58 AM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy; George Frm Br00klyn Park
Both of you can expect to be reviled and hated, GFBP for posting it and agreeing with it, and exnavy for agreeing with it.

He is right, though, no matter how many RINOs and neocons hate him for it.
3 posted on 09/01/2003 4:04:40 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (The scariest nine words in the English Language: We're from the government. We're here to help you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; blackie; madfly; editor-surveyor; sauropod
It is even incorrect to speak of "constitutional rights." The Constitution does not give anyone any rights. It merely prohibits the government from abrogating or abridging rights the people already have. That, too, is clear from the text if you read it.
================================
Guys, "That" is IT, in a "nutshell", Though "infringed" could have been added to "abrogating or abridging". Why is it that "honorable" HIGHLY educated judges Don't "get it"??? And, maybe even less educated legislators and presidents?? Peace and love, George.
4 posted on 09/01/2003 4:08:14 AM PDT by George Frm Br00klyn Park (FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
This country started moving away from states rights long ago, we need to move back in that direction.
5 posted on 09/01/2003 4:09:24 AM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
"Why is it that "honorable" HIGHLY educated judges Don't "get it"???"

George, your post is on the mark. Now, about those '"honorable" HIGHLY educated judges' - show me one. My great, great, great, great grandfather and a couple dozen others of his close relatives who fought in the Revolution did so in vain? Not if we stand tall and together stop the carnage that would abrogate all rights in favor of governmental dictating and control of every aspect of our lives.
6 posted on 09/01/2003 4:28:45 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
It's always a good feeling when others express the same opinion as mine.I'm just never as good about putting it so succinctly into words.State's Rights are SO important.
7 posted on 09/01/2003 4:34:57 AM PDT by Jackknife (.......in a constant search for wisdom.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jakkknife
I do not believe that it is only about "States Rights". States are also prone to abrogate our rights. They are no less guilty than the feds.
8 posted on 09/01/2003 4:41:04 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
It is possible that Charley is both correct and a complete raving lunatic.
9 posted on 09/01/2003 4:44:51 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile; George Frm Br00klyn Park; exnavy; hellinahandcart; countrydummy; Jeff Head; ...
Yep. And Yep to George's observations.

I don't always agree w/ Charley but he is usually a "must read."

10 posted on 09/01/2003 5:08:53 AM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a king?" "Because he doesn't have sh*t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
The result of a Godless society is..

No inalienable rights

11 posted on 09/01/2003 5:28:24 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
People either prefer federal judges making law or they don't -- I don't!

Neither should anyone else -- but they do.

12 posted on 09/01/2003 5:31:03 AM PDT by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
I am glad you found this and posted it. Charley Reese has the ability to cut through all the fluff and get to the heart of an issue.

I was in a discussion on this subject Saturday and I wish I had this article then. Reese expressed my opinion on the topic much better than I did.
13 posted on 09/01/2003 6:08:29 AM PDT by Naomi4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
>>...This country started moving away from states rights long ago, we need to move back in that direction...<<

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was one of the final "nails in the coffin" of State's Rights.

Prior to that Amendment, U.S. Senators were elected by their State's Legislature to represent the State's interests in Congress.

Afterwards, the Senators were elected by the populace of the State and thus began the current "popularity" contests we have now.

14 posted on 09/01/2003 6:52:27 AM PDT by FReepaholic (www.september-11-videos.com Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
......nor do I think it is all about states' rights. It is up to the locals to make sure their local leaders are not corrupt or leading them in the wrong direction. I wasn't just simplifying it.......
15 posted on 09/01/2003 7:35:59 AM PDT by Jackknife (.......in a constant search for wisdom.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
States are also prone to abrogate our rights

Like what's going on in Alabaster, Alabama. Some low income minorities are getting their property taken under "iminent domain" so the city can give it to a pivate developer who has promised higher tax revenues for the city if they take the land from the current owners and give it to them. They have decided that higher tax revenues for their "programs" constitutes "public use".

Or, using the NY blackout as an excuse get ready to see more property takings to accomodate power companies and stringing high voltage power lines.

Between taxes, eviornmentalist and tax and spend governments there is no "private property" in this country.
16 posted on 09/01/2003 7:41:31 AM PDT by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw
The 17th and the 16th Amendments pretty much nullified the Cconstitution.
17 posted on 09/01/2003 7:43:12 AM PDT by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BabsC
pivate developer ------ private developer.
18 posted on 09/01/2003 7:45:43 AM PDT by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Mr. Reese gets it right, again. But thanks to that bonehead, Lincoln and his ilk, America will never be what our Fathers had intended it to be.

Great article.

19 posted on 09/01/2003 8:01:58 AM PDT by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
This country started moving away from states rights long ago, we need to move back in that direction.

That will only happen after another Civil War.

20 posted on 09/01/2003 8:03:56 AM PDT by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson