“…The Constitution and the Bill of Rights withholds from the national government the power to address in any lawful fashion the issue of an establishment of religion. And it, by the Tenth Amendment, reserves for the states and the people of the states the power to address that question. That means, by the way, that though these folks don't want to hear this--because this is a phrase they hate to hear; they especially hate to hear it from me because I'm one of the few people they can't accuse of racism when I raise it.
The Bill of Rights, actually, in this instance, protects a state right, a right of the states in the sovereign element which they have retained under our Constitution, another little fact everyone wants to forget. Okay?
And what the first phrase of the First Amendment protects is not an individual right. Individuals have no power to make laws. What it protects is a power of government, and it reserves that power of government to the states and to the people of the states.
Now, that, by the way, means--and here's where we get to Roy Moore and lawbreaking--that, by the way, means that even if you accepted the incorporation doctrine, what's enjoined upon the state officials is to respect those rights, privileges, and immunities that are established in the Bill of Rights. That's the argument they make.
Well, it turns out that one of the rights established in the Bill of Rights is the right of the states and of the people of the states to deal with the issue of religious establishment without dictation or interference from the federal government.
Now, if you're Roy Moore and a federal judge tells you that you must surrender this right of your state, surrender this right of your people, then you must look him in the eye and say, "By the law of Alabama and by the Constitution of the United States, I must say, 'NO, SIR!'"
And in case people are still confused, I would remind them that the doctrine that not only do you have the right to refuse an unlawful order, but in the most touchy situation imaginable--that of our military--can you think of a situation in which discipline is more important than in the midst of war? And yet, in the midst of war, the lowliest private soldier in our military not only has the right, he is under an obligation to refuse an unlawful order. And we're to say that what a private soldier in the army has a moral obligation to do is not the obligation of the highest officials in our states, when they see the rights of our states and our people being trampled underfoot by those who have illegitimately usurped the power reserved to the states in the Constitution?
Do you know what it means when you take an illegitimate power and call it your own, like someone who ascends to a kingship by illegitimate means, and then, all by your lonesome, answering to no one, you wield that power in an abusive way?
They call it tyranny."
Whatever happened to the proposed DEVOLVEMENT of Power from the Federal Leviathan and back to the States, Localities, and Individuals?! What would it take to make THAT a higher priority in the upcoming election?! If a given State wants to provide Daycare fer its citizenry, why don't they institute it at the State Level and quit trying to make it a Federal Program?! If it's a good idea, I'm sure working age Americans will flock to the State...if not, maybe the program dies out fer lack of interest!!
We could easily take care of any number of Federal Programs by block-granting the funds to the States fer the next five years, and cut the funding by 20% per year while the States choose to fund the program or let it die after five years.
FReegards...MUD
There was a reason why that phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," was the first phrase in the Bill of Rights -- -- What it says is, there can be no federal law that deals with the subject of religious establishment.
Wrong, Alan.. It deals with legislators making no law about "respecting AN establishment of religion".
'AN' establishment, not 'THE' establishment of religion.
Big difference in meaning.
'An establishment of religion' is any teaching, precept, dogma, or object relating to any specific religion.
What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench, you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue.
Wrong again, -- if some lawmaking body is writing law that favors the principles of one religion over another, they are violating the rights of non-favored citizens by ignoring the 1st.. The courts can redress such violations.
But no, no. [Some say,] "Alan, it's in the Constitution!" Well, as I recall, it's that very phrase they use in the Constitution to usurp their authority. So, frankly, the separation of church and state and this mythology they talk about--scour the document, you'll find it nowhere in there.
What you will find is a clear statement in the First Amendment that this power is withheld from the federal government,
The BOR's applies to ALL lawmaking bodies in the USA, Alan, as you well know..
and a clear statement in the Tenth Amendment that "all those powers not given to the federal government, or prohibited in the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people." --
-- With the clear understanding that the supremacy clause & the 14th both say the States are bound to honor the US Constitution & BOR's.
It is ludicrous to see a major political figure like Keyes claim that states are free violate our individual rights. -- I'd like to see him defend the CA assault weapon prohibition on this basis, for instance..
free dixie,sw