Posted on 06/24/2006 2:00:27 PM PDT by wagglebee
I suppose you think that Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the "law of the land"?
Or should we still subscribe to this little gem from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford:
"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"
Jefferson wasn't an author of the Constitution.
I believe he was out of the country in France at the time.
I am fully aware of that.
A real good analyis on why the 14th amendment does not incorporate the establishment clause against the states see:
http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#e
Is that really your position?
If the Supreme Court has accepted it, it won't be disappearing anytime soon. Nor should it.
"William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts
Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)
Thanks for the Post - will have to spend some quiet time with this one.
"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"
No I was quoting from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's majority decision in "Dred Scott." One of the Supreme Court rulings that under YOUR thinking has been "accepted" and "won't be disappearing any time soon. Nor should it."
GREAT post!
Bookmarked.
Exactly... we have a FReeper who has a great (free) insight on this subject... I like it so well, I bought his book.
http://www.logical.arts.new.net/
The Conservative Debate Handbook is a great read and FR is greatly blessed to have Ohioan as a member.
"We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States"
And, just perhaps, you should give up the perfidious habit of putting words in other peoples mouths.
bump for later.
Hope you don't mind if I tie in some older articles on this subject ...
America is a Christian Nation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1192745/posts
God In Your State Constitution?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188144/posts
Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384703/posts
Religion and the Constitution (Kinda long but it's an important subject)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1e98126aee.htm
Scalia: Church-state separation didn't protect Jews in Holocaust
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1313826/posts
THE BIG LIBERAL LIE (Seperation of Church and State)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54a9ed63d1.htm
William Rehnquist totally destroys "Separation of Church and State" myth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts
This article is valuable for showing in great detail that not even Jefferson held the position that has been created by modern constitutional jurisprudence misusing his "wall of separation" phrase.
But what is more basic is that this phrase and the "Danbury letter" was an ABSURD place to go prospecting for the meaning of the 1st Amendment. As you both have noted, Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention and was not even in the country. Also, as the article notes near the beginning, he was far from the spokesman for his contemporaries on all matters of religion and state and in fact was regarded as having views on the margin of society in that regard. Thus, for Justice Black and others to rely upon a MISREADING of Jefferson to create a fictitious intellectual pedigree for the supposed original meaning of the 1st Amendment is just the usual sort of liberal FRAUD.
Nearly every one of the original 13 states had an ESTABLISHED religion during the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, so whatever the 1st Amendment was intended to do it certainly wasn't meant by anyone as a bar to any (state and local) government support of Christian religion, it was meant simply to keep the federal government from creating a national establishment of one Christian denomination over the others.
Full agreement...
Article 52 states, the church is separated from the state. Section 1, Article 14 states, ...shall be a secular state. No religion may be instituted as state-sponsored or mandatory religion. Religious associations shall be separated from the state, Also in the 1918, the 1924 and 1936 Constitution of the ......USSR.
....Oh wait wrong Constitution.... Sorry (/sarc)
Well, it's a sure bet that the people will remain ignorant about what is in the Constitution. All that the enemies freedom of religion have to do is say the magic phrase, "wall of separation" and the argument is settled as far as most people are concerned. I have challenged people to tell where I can find that phrase in the Constitution. They don't know where to look for it but they're sure it's in there somewhere, after all, the ACLU told them it is.
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.