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

Skip to comments.

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Supreme Court got Jefferson's "wall of separation" wrong)
Princeton University: Jefferson's Draft ^ | Thomas Jefferson

Posted on 08/26/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Amendment10

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(Excerpt) Read more at princeton.edu ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: clause; danbury; establishment; jefferson; presidents; reynoldsvusa; scotus; separation; thomasjefferson; vanity; wall; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-410 next last
The Supreme Court misunderstood Jefferson's "wall of separation" and consequently got its interpretation of the establishment clause wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that Jefferson had also noted that the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments.
1 posted on 08/26/2006 7:03:39 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

No offense meant but how long did you lurk before signing up to think this teaches FReepers anything?


2 posted on 08/26/2006 7:11:53 PM PDT by pgyanke (Christ embraces sinners; liberals embrace the sin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

I've never seen that specific quote posted before. It does show how Hugo Black was an ideologue who did not scruple to quote Jefferson out of context.


3 posted on 08/26/2006 7:14:32 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Though everyone acknowledges that it was not the intent of it's authors or ratifiers...

The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is where the federal courts claim to find the power.

I can't remember the last Fourteenth amendment case that had anything to do with it's intent. "Brown", I guess.

4 posted on 08/26/2006 7:18:53 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Welcome to FR.


5 posted on 08/26/2006 7:32:14 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
There are a lot of these "they got it wrong" arguments floating around but it is really a moot point for anything but trying to stir up emotions. The authors of that same Constitution also granted the power to the SCOTUS to make exactly these determinations of intent.

Option B is an amendment. I would be interested in hearing any proposed amendments you may have.

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
6 posted on 08/26/2006 7:45:00 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10; pgyanke; mrsmith
> The Supreme Court misunderstood Jefferson's "wall of separation" and consequently got its interpretation of the establishment clause wrong.

You really ought to quote Jefferson's passage if you're going to talk about it:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Now, your point is well taken, that the U.S. Constitution speaks only about the limits on the powers of the federal government, and therefore does not prohibit any state from connecting church and state -- indeed early American history is filled with examples of religion-based states.

So I disagree that the Supreme Court misinterpreted Jefferson's statement. What happened, in fact, was that the 14th Amendment opened the door for an override of the limits on the powers of the federal government, as mrsmith correctly points out. It didn't misinterpret TJ, it ignored him (and the 10th Amendment).

Welcome to Free Republic. Those of us who study and revere the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, will gladly engage you in all the debate you care to join. Your handle suggests you're looking forward to it too.

7 posted on 08/26/2006 7:53:40 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Welcome to FR


8 posted on 08/26/2006 8:00:25 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10; All
Nobody has any specific proposals for an amendment? That seems strange for such a hot topic.

The only periods in the entire Bill of Rights are at the end of each amendment. It should be a simple task with all the thought and energy that has been put into the topic.
9 posted on 08/26/2006 8:06:16 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

I have always thought it an interesting irony that the first time the Supreme Court referenced this metaphor created in the Danbury letter was in defense of marriage against polygamy in the Utah territories.

The court in Reynolds ruled in 1878 that the wall protected the American tradition of marriage.

I agree that the wall metaphor is bad law and bad interpretation of the religion clauses of the first amendment.


10 posted on 08/26/2006 8:09:22 PM PDT by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
"...strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!"

Except for the "swords" part!
<grin>

11 posted on 08/26/2006 8:11:20 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

No offence, but I'm happy that I evidently won't be the only undiplomatic poster in FR.

To answer your question, I posted 10 minutes after stumbling on FR after years of knock-down drag out discussions of the issue in other message boards. I posted because my FR keyword search returned an anemic total of five posts relating to the issue. I probaby should have tried more keywords.

I predict that my participation in FR is going to be short-lived anyway. This is because I have found it frustrating to try to address the historical material concerning the Court's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in length limited posts. In fact, I had to rip out much of my first post to get things to fit. And it's probaby time to wrap up this post and start again.


12 posted on 08/26/2006 9:13:08 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Welcome to FR; thanks for the post, I'm sure most here will agree.


13 posted on 08/26/2006 9:13:20 PM PDT by Atchafalaya (When you are there thats the best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

There's a "little bit" of material to discuss concerning the Court's misrepresentation of Jefferson so I'm claustrophobic in these length-limited posts. Please allow me to be grouchy and bear with me with a religion-specific Jefferson example of the 10th A. protected powers of the states.

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7


14 posted on 08/26/2006 9:27:09 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Interesting. There was recently a federal case - can't recall the name or the circuit, I think it was a circuit case - in which the court said that the "wall of separation" is a misnomer and there was never such an intent in the Constitution. It was a "Ten Commandments in a public building" case which the ACLU lost, if I recall correctly.


15 posted on 08/26/2006 9:35:41 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

The people have forgotten that the states had the power to address religious issues before they established the federal government and its Constitution. The Founders had shrewdly reserved this power uniquely to the states via the 1st and 10th Amendmets as evidenced by the Jefferson extracts that I have already posted. Here is another Jefferson extract which emphasizes that government power to legislate religion was reserved uniquely to the states.

"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262


16 posted on 08/26/2006 9:40:02 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Crooked Justices legislating a special-interest, anti-religous expression agenda from the bench twisted the honest interpretation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion as much as they twisted the honest interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion.

The smoking gun with respect to the Court's dirty work in the Cantwell and Everson opinions is to note that neither of these opinions reference the 10th Amendment power of the states to legislate religion in any way. Justices who evidently didn't take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously seemingly regarded the religious powers aspect of the 10th Amendment as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to in these opinions with respect to pushing their unconstitutional agenda of absolute c&s separation.

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8


17 posted on 08/26/2006 9:57:18 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Thank you for the welcome.

Please forgive me for being grouchier than usual because of the tone of some of the replies I've gotten so far.

Also, I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.


18 posted on 08/26/2006 10:02:50 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
No, the SCOTUS did not ignore Jefferson - - they deliberately took a handful of his words out of context and perverted them. I suggest that you check out ENGEL v. VITALE (the case which started the decades-long attack on that pesky second clause of the 1st Amendment) where you will read the following passage:

"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

See how "government.... composing official prayers" has been perverted by the athiests of the ACLU and their Democrat brethren into the sick attack on American tradition and values (and even the Boy Scouts!) that we see today? Kids are being sent home for wearing crucixes; honors graduates are being told they are not allowed to make religious references in their graduation speeches; high school football players are told not to huddle in a pre-game prayer; decades-old public monuments are suddenly ruled unacceptable and ordered removed. Etc.

It's plain sick.

19 posted on 08/26/2006 10:07:48 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

I don't know what you mean by "limited length posts" but this thread will continue for as long as people stay interested and offer responses or post new information, links, etc. In any event, all threads are archived and remain available to freepers.

This is a good topic, and it is one which has been discussed often (and passionately) here at Free Republic for years. By the way, as far as I can tell the vast majority of freepers would love to see the athiest Democrat scumbags of the ACLU thoroughly disavowed and defunded by Congress.


20 posted on 08/26/2006 10:14:53 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ndt

I cannot believe your comment about the SCOTUS determining intent! :^( Maybe you haven't read my other posts yet.

Regardless what Justice Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation," I've posted three Jefferson extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the power of the states to address religious issues in some way. In fact, two of the extracts reference how the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments.

So I don't know where you're coming from with respect to defending the USSC's determination of the intentions of the Founders given they obviously got the wires crossed big time with Jefferson.

In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803. http://tinyurl.com/qf2vw


21 posted on 08/26/2006 10:26:29 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Once it was forgotten that the intent of the 14th Amendment was pretty narrow: namely the protection of the rights of Africian-Americans, the courts began to invest the language with all sorts of other meanins. For instance, the restriction of the power of the states to regulate corporations by regarding them as "persons." Then with the Great War came the process of "nationalizing" the Bill of Rights and applying them to the States, even though most States, if not all, already had such bills. Logically, the hold of the states over relgious bodies ought to have been loosened, except that the intent of the courts became the restriction of religious freedom, since that freedom was regarded as dangerous as political dissent. I find it ironical that many American liberals regard Christianity, at least in its traditional form, as seditious as the Chinese government does. If they could they would establish a federal agency to govern the several churches and, in a sense, the IRS serves that function.


22 posted on 08/26/2006 10:28:36 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

How does one stay away....
The more serious problem goes to the theoretical balance of powers. None such exist. The courts are the supreme authority in the government. The Executive and the Judicial branches will never make the Constitutional claim that they are not under the authority of the SCOTUS. There is not the political will to opposed the dictatorial, absolute authority of the courts.
In practice we are not a republic. We are an oligarchy. The Constitution specifically forbids one granch of government from assuming absolute authority. That is precisely what the SCOTUS has done, unopposed.


23 posted on 08/26/2006 10:30:06 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

"So I disagree that the Supreme Court misinterpreted Jefferson's statement. What happened, in fact, was that the 14th Amendment opened the door for an override of the limits on the powers of the federal government, as mrsmith correctly points out. It didn't misinterpret TJ, it ignored him (and the 10th Amendment)."

Where did you get the idea that Justices who swear to defend the Constitution can simply ignore amendments on a whim? As I posted elsewhere, Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution:

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803. http://tinyurl.com/qf2vw


24 posted on 08/26/2006 10:32:28 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

"Welcome to Free Republic. Those of us who study and revere the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, will gladly engage you in all the debate you care to join. Your handle suggests you're looking forward to it too."

What I've seen being revered so far is politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretations of the Constitution. So I'm sorry to say that so far I have wondered if FR is a bunch high schoolers. And I'm sure that everybody is likewise wondering what grade school I attend.


25 posted on 08/26/2006 10:39:40 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
"I cannot believe your comment about the SCOTUS determining intent! :^( Maybe you haven't read my other posts yet. "

Seeing as you have been here for one day, it can't bee too hard to find. I agree that we should bypass this discussion for the moment as, for good or bad, intentional or not, that is how it currently works.

"So I don't know where you're coming from with respect to defending the USSC's determination of the intentions of the Founders given they obviously got the wires crossed big time with Jefferson."

I don't believe I stated any opinion of the correctness of that interpretation.

I stated that the point was moot since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this and rarely overturns it's previous rulings. That leaves the amendment process as being the only real avenue to change it. I am specifically avoiding talking about congressional removal of judicial jurisdiction as this does not necessarily apply to the SCOTUS as they could just deny that interpretation, although they would be overruling Ex parte McCardle to do so.

"In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution."

I've never seen a secularist or Christian or Taoist nor even a satanist say anything like that. Of course they are bound by the Constitution. When language is poorly worded it becomes open to interpretation. Just because they interpreted it differently than you like is not an indication of some evil plot. It is congresses responsibility to write laws that are explicit and not open to interpretation.

Which brings me back to my original point. A simple Constitutional amendment that explicitly states what your goals are would end the problem.

What would you propose as the phraseology (to borrow a word from Chief Justice Marshall) for a Constitutional amendment?
26 posted on 08/26/2006 10:51:08 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

I used to reference the Reynolds opinion in conjunction with the Everson opinion since both opinions completely ignore the 10th Amendment. But Reynolds has no reference to the 10th Amendment protected power of the states probably because Utah wasn't a state at the time.

Also, consider that in Justice Black's fervor to use Jefferson's words to help justify Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, Black seems to have overlooked that Jefferson never stressed, to my knowledge, a connection between the establishment clause and the "wall of separation".

"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, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947. http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8

Again, contrary to Justice Black's "profound insight" into Jefferson's "wall of separation" and the establishment clause, we've got two historical extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the unique, 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.


27 posted on 08/26/2006 11:21:36 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw

The problem, in my "humble" opinion, is that the people are ignorant of both the Constitution and how their government is supposed to work.

http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8

As a consequence of widespread constitutional and government ignorance, anti-religious expression judges are walking all over our religious freedoms. After all, when was the last time that you heard of a judge who took the 10th A. powers of the states to address religious issues into consideration before booting Intelligent Design out of the school building? Indeed, judges who want to protect our religious freedoms may be unaware that Jefferson acknowledged the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues.

The bottom line is that the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about our religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.


28 posted on 08/26/2006 11:42:27 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

*Bump* for later reading


29 posted on 08/26/2006 11:50:02 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

You don't have to leave, honest. You do have to get a tough skin to hang around here though.


30 posted on 08/26/2006 11:53:04 PM PDT by ladyinred (Leftists, the enemy within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ndt

I don't understand what you mean by an amendment that states what my goals are.

Also, you have evidently chosen to ignore, and I've seen this many times before, that regardless what Justice Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation" that Jefferson had actually acknowledged that the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to legislate religion uniquely to the state governments. But this is not surprising if you are aware that the states had this power long before they established the federal government and its Constitution.

As I've stated elsewhere, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.


31 posted on 08/26/2006 11:59:48 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
It's right there in Chapter 7, Article 52, Section (2):
Article 52.
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.


32 posted on 08/27/2006 12:19:01 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
> What I've seen being revered so far is politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretations of the Constitution. So I'm sorry to say that so far I have wondered if FR is a bunch high schoolers. And I'm sure that everybody is likewise wondering what grade school I attend.

I don't know how long you lurked on FR before signing up yesterday, but surely you realize that this forum is not noted for political correctness, and while we have our share of non-religious atheists, we have damn few folks who are actively anti-religious.

As to the level of intellectual sophistication here, my observation is that it runs the gamut from profoundly wise to profoundly stupid, often within the same thread. That's one of the things that keeps us cranking here -- there's something for everybody. We try to avoid personal attacks, so it's not likely you'll get called out for being in grade school. ;-)

Which is to say, this is a conservative forum, but don't expect folks here to necessarily agree with you. This is not an echo chamber like DU (most of the time, anyway).

33 posted on 08/27/2006 1:34:12 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
> ...I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.

FR does not length-limit, to my knowledge -- I've seen pages and pages of material included in individual comments, as well as very lengthy posts, as long as the source doesn't require severe excerpting (in which case that's not FR's doing). So unless you're trying to include the NYC phone book, I think you'll do okay. Granted, there might be tricks to accomplishing those long posts that aren't obvious; I don't think I've stressed the system myself before so I haven't run into a problem and had to solve it.

34 posted on 08/27/2006 1:46:37 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw; Amendment10
***Interesting. There was recently a federal case - can't recall the name or the circuit, I think it was a circuit case - in which the court said that the "wall of separation" is a misnomer and there was never such an intent in the Constitution. It was a "Ten Commandments in a public building" case which the ACLU lost, if I recall correctly.***

That was ACLU v Mercer in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. And yes the ACLU lost - big time. In addition, in its decision the Court derided and insulted the ACLU probably as much as legally ethical (unlike that Moonbat in Mich). It was a major smackdown. Anyway here is the salient part of the decision.

The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.
IMO this was s a HUGH victory for the good guys. The problem was that this decision came down right before Christmas on Dec 20, 2005. And at that time 'we' were all caught up in the 'War on Christmas', so this got little attention.

ACLU v Mercer County, Ky (NOTE its PDF)

And excuse the interruption :-)

35 posted on 08/27/2006 6:16:23 AM PDT by Condor51 (Better to fight for something than live for nothing - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The SC has wisely recognized for more than 200 years that our Constitution is a secular document and we have a secular government. Neither Christianity nor any other religion is to have favored treatment.

The Constitution makes no reference to a deity or Christ--it says "We the people..." not anything about 'divine law'.

The notion that religion can be established by states is just nuts. Could Texas become an officially Baptist state or Connecticut an officially Catholic state? The idea is ludicrous. The right to freedom of religious conscience and governments on all levels that are neutral about religion is fundamental to Americanism, and cannot be decided by priests or preachers who manage to capture the power of government depending on which state you live it.

36 posted on 08/27/2006 8:17:19 AM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
"Also, you have evidently chosen to ignore..."

I have ignored nothing that have written. Other than asking me if I read your other posts, you did not ask a single question. Just because I choose not to fall to may knees and praise you for your genius does not mean I did not hear you.

"I don't understand what you mean by an amendment that states what my goals are."

I on the other had have asked a pointed question 3 time now and you have not even attempted an answer, instead claiming you do not understand the question that was already posed you you in 3 different ways. Let me try it as a request instead.

My GOAL: So that I may understand exactly your position on how freedom of religion / wall of separation issues should be interpreted.

My REQUEST: Please provide me with the text of a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment that is sufficiently explicit in it language as to be beyond misinterpretation by the judiciary.
37 posted on 08/27/2006 9:31:13 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Thanks for the reminder - I'd forgotten the name of the case - and I agree it was a HUGE smackdown for the ACLU. Is the 6th Circuit the one which will hear the appeal of that Michigan moonbat judge's decision on the NSA terrorist wiretapping case?


38 posted on 08/27/2006 10:41:45 AM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
***Is the 6th Circuit the one which will hear the appeal of that Michigan moonbat judge's decision on the NSA terrorist wiretapping case?***

Actually YES. The 6th covers MI, OH, KY TN.

So given the 6th's general 'disdain' for the ACLU's antics this may not even go to SCOTUS.

I have the Mercer case bookmarked. Sometimes when I feel down I go back and read it to cheer me up :-)

39 posted on 08/27/2006 10:54:52 AM PDT by Condor51 (Better to fight for something than live for nothing - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
I have the Mercer case bookmarked. Sometimes when I feel down I go back and read it to cheer me up :-)

I just re-read it thanks to the link you provided. I really like the part where the court essentially says the ACLU isn't the "reasonable person" used as a standard and is, basically, an "eggshell plaintiff." BWAHAHAHA! Love it.

40 posted on 08/27/2006 11:17:32 AM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest

If constitution-twisting secularists think that they have the license to force Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a private letter into the establishment clause then they cannot complain if Christians find Jefferson's "Nature's God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence in the 10th Amendment. Indeed, Jefferson noted that the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


41 posted on 08/27/2006 1:32:59 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ndt

No, the 10th Amendment doesn't mention any specific government power.

You have nonetheless repeatedly ignored that despite the fact that the madman Justice Black used Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause that Jefferson had noted that the Founding Fathers had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The bottom line is that Justice Black probably couldn't have picked a worse person to quote to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause. Justice Black outright ignored Jefferson's "secret formulas" for interpreting the Constitution:

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92


42 posted on 08/27/2006 2:09:22 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
"No, the 10th Amendment doesn't mention any specific government power."

The only one talking about the 10th is you. The closest I have gotten is to say that it is currently interpreted differently than you like and therefor the point was moot.

"...the fact that the madman Justice Black used Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify his treasonous interpretation.."

There is the statement of a man willing to rationally discuss a topic. /sarc

"Jefferson had noted that the Founding Fathers had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments:"

Are you even aware that I have not even commented on anything even remotely addressing this.

I have no idea who you are arguing with because you are running both sides of the debate. You are rebutting point after point that I did not make.
43 posted on 08/27/2006 2:24:27 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

There is no debate about the so-called constitutional principal of absolute c&s separation. After all, Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, made it clear that the states uniquely have the power to address religious issues.

What has happened is that anti-religious expression special interest groups long ago failed to wrap Congress around their fingers with respect to making laws that reflected their selfish concerns. So selfish interest groups bypassed Congress by getting their members appointed as Supreme Court justices. Special interest factions were then able force their anti-religious expression ideas into the laws that Congress makes, Congress be damned.

The reason that Supreme Court anti-religious expression shenanigans have been going on for so long is that the people are ignorant of both their Constitution and how their government works.

http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8

Anti-religious expression judges who don't take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously are taking advantage of widespread constitutional ignorance by walking all over our religious freedoms.

As I have stated elsewhere, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments actually say about their religious freedoms. Then, when the people wise up to the fact that they are essentially prisoners of conscious to the bogus interpretation of the establishment clause by a renegade, anti-religious expression Supreme Court, they will hopefully heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with crooked judges:

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.


44 posted on 08/27/2006 2:27:17 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
To say nothing of the fact that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being debated.

His letter to the dude in Danbury assuring that there would be no national religion has certainly been misread by our intellectual bettors (sarc) on the Godless left.

45 posted on 08/27/2006 2:29:00 PM PDT by Mr. Buzzcut (metal god ... visit The Ponderosa .... www.vandelay.com ... DEATH BEFORE DHIMMITUDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

> ...I'm anticipating that these limited length posts (at least I think that they are limited) are going to be a bear with respect the amount of historical material that I would like to reference.

Thank you. Initial posts are limited and I wrongly presumed this to be the rule for the entire message board. This rattled a skeleton for me because I have participated in limited length message boards and they don't work for me.


46 posted on 08/27/2006 2:31:58 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Let me make this really simple for you.

Please provide me with the text of an amendment to rectify what you view as a bad judicial decision.
47 posted on 08/27/2006 2:33:30 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

If you explain why you posted from the Russian Constitution then perhaps I can comment.


48 posted on 08/27/2006 2:34:53 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

Thank you for the encouragement.

My concern was length-limited posts. But the limits evidently apply only to the initial post.


49 posted on 08/27/2006 2:39:11 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
If you explain why you posted from the Russian Constitution then perhaps I can comment.

It's not the Russian constitution -- it's the Soviet Communist constitution. It's the one the Democrats follow scruputiously. Go look at it. The Democrats follow it point by point. The government must guarantee the right to housing, the right to a job, the right to rest and leisure, the right to health care, and citizens are obliged to protect nature, etc. "Separation of church and state" is word-for-word straight out of it.

50 posted on 08/27/2006 2:58:24 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-410 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