The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Supreme Court got Jefferson's "wall of separation" wrong)

>>>There's no such purpose contained in the law. The text never mentions race, it simply mentions persons and citizens, which shall not have their privileges and immunities recognized and honored by the feds, usurped by the States. That statement applies the Bill of Rights to all lower jurisdictions.<<<

You have been misled by left-wing legal eagles. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was as I stated earlier: to give freed slaves the same state rights as free whites. One should always refer to original intent in interpreting the Constitution, rather than judicial precedent or other new-fangled interpretation. Of course, if you don't believe me regarding original intent, maybe you will believe this fellow named Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - June 12, 1823.

"You have been misled by left-wing legal eagles."

I have been misled by no one.

"One should always refer to original intent in interpreting the Constitution"

It's written in English. I can read and understand what's written. I don't need to refer to what anyone in particular says about it, whether it was by those there at the time, or 200+ years later. What they say isn't law, what the document says is.

>>>I don't need to refer to what anyone in particular says about it, whether it was by those there at the time, or 200+ years later. What they say isn't law, what the document says is.<<<

You don't believe in original intent? Well, I have finally ran into someone who is smarter than Thomas Jefferson. I never suspected I would live that long. [/sarcasm]

You'll have to ask Philip F. He's quoted in italics. My comments are in normal text.

"You don't believe in original intent?"

I believe in the English language.

>>>“The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure Blacks received the same rights as whites”, was the outcome of what methodology of constitutional interpretation?<<<

Conforming to the probable construction manifested by the spirit of the debate leading up to the adoption of the amendment.

>>>Are you saying that we are to gather the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, from the spirit manifested in the debates at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1788? <<<

This is a serious debate. If, however, you are not being a wise a.., and truly fail to grasp the meaning of Jefferson's quote, let me give you some background...

Jefferson despised (and feared) what he considered were the unlimited powers given (inadvertently) to the Supreme Court by the framers (the Courts were supposed to be the inferior branch). Therefore, in his letter titled "THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION", written to Justice William Johnson on June 12, 1823, he expressed his concern that the Supreme Court had advanced beyond its constitutional limitations -- that extra-judicial decisions were being used as precedent for subsequent extra-judicial decisions. He issued a warning that the interpretation of the constitution should always be derived from the original intent as manifested in the debates leading up to the text, rather than the interpretation of previous judicial decisions, which we call precedent.

Therefore, in the case of the 14th Amendment, you should ignore any and all subsequent judicial interpretations. Rather, you should study the debates leading up to the text of the 14th Amendment before interpreting the text.

Note that Jefferson despised the notion that Marbury vs. Madison was settled law, insisting it was merely a dissertation by John Marshall, and nothing else.

He wrote, "The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They were not lessoned yet by Cohen's case, nor aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.

But the Chief Justice [John Marshall] says, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

Do you believe you followed Thomas Jefferson's principles of honest constitutional interpretation to arrive at your view of the meaning of the First Amendment's religion clauses?

Why do you make things more complicated than they need to be?

Not even knowing who Thomas Jefferson was or what his ideas were, basic reading skills indicate that only Congress can violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment concerning making certain laws. Whenever anybody other than Congress "violates" the bogus constitutional principle of c&s separation, the only thing is that is actually getting violated is "laws" that anti-religious expression judges are unlawfully legislating from the bench.

BTW, what exactly is your interpretation of the religion clauses? Does your interpretation prohibit the President of the United State from issuing executive proclamations which contain recommendations of a religious nature or which contain suggestions that pertain to "the duty which we owe to our Creator?"

Although Presidents Washington and Adams, for example, did nothing unconstitutional by issuing proclamations recognizing "Thanksgiving and Prayer," or whatever religious related special day that was, such actions confused the division of powers of the 1st and 10th Amendments.

I use Jefferson's remark to Rev. Miller as the best generalization of the intentions of the Founders concerning the religious aspects of the 1st A.. Jefferson indicated simply that no power to address religious issues has been delegated to the general (federal) government.

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

Take President Eisenhower's "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. I think that Eisenhower confused the separation of federal and state powers by using federal power to include "under God" in the Pledge similarly as Washington and Adams had done with proclaiming "Thanksgiving and Prayer".

I think that Eisenhower's good intentions with the Pledge would be beyond reproach today if he had instead encouraged the state governments to use their 10th A. power to address religious issues to make state laws which included "under God" in the Pledge.