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

Princeton University: Jefferson's Draft ^ | Thomas Jefferson

[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.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I'm unsure of the context that you are replying to.

Just the weight that the "Wall of Separation-ists" give to Jefferson who was not in Philadelphia that Summer.

[ndt]

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods.."

Since government institutions are financed by the money of the citizens, would this not also preclude government funding to religions institutions or the use of government property for housing of religious displays?

That would in fact be compelling the "burdening the goods" of a person through the use of their tax dollars.

[ndt]

I just realized I might have misinterpreted your aim in your post.

[Amendment10]

Justice Black, a bad apple Protestant, seems to have pushed his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in order to pull the carpet from under papal influence in the state governments. But his 10th Amendment ignoring approach to pulling off his ploy backfired. This is evidenced by the way that religious expression hating secularists were able to later harness the power of politically correct interpretations Black's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause. They did this by likewise unconstitutionally pulling the carpet from under religious expression in general in institutions under state government control.

Justice Reed, evidently frustrated with Justice Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, noted the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed explained that it is the job of Justices who take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously to balance the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal freedoms:

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

So based on Jefferson's notes about the 1st and 10th Amendments, the states have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.

Again, due to widespread constitutional ignorance, secular judges are now getting away with using Black's bogus establishment clause interpretation as a license to unconstitutionally force the religious aspects of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on the powers of the federal government onto the state governments.

As I've repeatedly stated, the people need to get a grip on what the honest interpretations of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendment's 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 majority, 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.

[lonestar67]

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Jefferson

this notion of Jefferson has been revised to read [religious] opinion. It is hilarious to me that he uses the word "sinful"

The revision makes for a positive obligation for the government to demolish religion. Everyone knows this revision is bogus but we play along.

You get religious freedom in America-- period.

[ndt]

"this notion of Jefferson has been revised to read [religious] opinion. "

Well I may not be qualified to argue the other side of this argument. I am a strict secularist in the sense of using government funds or properties for the support of religious causes. I do not however agree with a limitation on the freedom of speech of individuals just because they work for the government.

In other words, Government funding for religious institutions BAD, Ten commandments on court house lawn, BAD, Congressman wants to wear a cross or even a pair of Armor of God PJs on the floor of congress, does not bother me in the least.

[ndt]

I WROTE: "I am a strict secularist in the sense of using government funds or properties for the support of religious causes."

I should really clarify that. I don't even care if church groups use school facilities, as long as those facilities are available to all (law abiding / non dangerous to children) groups that want to use them on the same basis after hours.

[cowtowney]

ping

[hinckley buzzard]

Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, “A phrase begins life as a literary expression; its felicity leads to its lazy repetition; and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminatingly used to express different and sometimes contradictory ideas.”

Jefferson's wall was a very different thing than the "high and impregnable wall" invented by Hugo Black.

[hinckley buzzard]

Hugo Black's own son acknowledged that the old Klansman from Alabama had retained his anti-Catholic biases all his life. According to his clerks, he did not even research the founding debates on the religion issue until after the flood of criticism directed at his Everson opinion. While the case nominally supported parochial schools, the holding was considered less significant than the hostile tone of the explanation and the distorted hsitory.

[RouxStir]

"I'm anticipating that these limited length posts"

Your post may be as long as you would like. But just remember, as in conversation or delivering a speech, most people have very short attention spans unless you are ...

What the hell was I posting about, again?

[rwfromkansas]

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in 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 rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority (Jefferson letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808)."

"[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, ever one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Jefferson was clearly only concerned with a state church and viewed that as the only concern of the First Amendment.

[ndt]

"Jefferson's wall was a very different thing than the "high and impregnable wall" invented by Hugo Black."

Although you often hear the phrase "seperation of church and state" it is generally the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) that is applied. The most important recent application was in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board

The Lemon Test
1) Does the challenged legislation or activity have a legitimate secular purpose?;
2) Does the legislation or activity have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion?
and
3) Does the legislation or activity excessively entangle government with religion?

That sounds reasonable to me.

How would you change it?

[RobbyS]

Neither Jews not blacks seem aware of the Klan's great hostility to the Catholic Church. That's because they shared this hostility.

[sayfer bullets]

1 Samuel 8:

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king.
11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use.
17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us.
20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

______________________________-

This is why, today, we live in a country which denies the practicality and brilliance of what God, through Samuel, offered in that time. The Constitution defines the relationship(s) between state government and the federal government. Man's quest for expediency and the path of least resistance brings us to a world where state government is but a province bearing tribute to Ceasar.

Welcome to Free Republic, sir. I have thoroughly enjoyed the exchanges your topic initiated.

[Amendment10]

I'm sorry if my replies appear to be going off on a tangent. But we're actually discussing the likelihood of a white-collar criminal activity pulled off by government officials at the highest levels of the judicial branch of our government, a series of closed door events which took place more than 60 years ago.

Justice Black and his crony Justice friends first twisted the honest interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion.

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

Their modus operandi, in my opinion, was to spike the Cantwell opinion with an unconstitutional note about the 1st and 14th Amendments. This note would later be their alibi with respect to creating the illusion of having to conform to case precedent - a phony case precedent - that was deceivingly regarded as more important than what the Constitution says:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.

Trying to keep this post brief, the problem with both the Cantwell and Everson opinions (Everson mentioned below), as hinted by the above extract from Cantwell, is that there is no mention of the 10th A. power of the states in either of these opinions. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Justice Black and his cronies evidently regarded the religious aspects of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to with respect to pushing their under the table agenda of absolute c&s separation.

Getting back to the Cantwell opinion, not only did these cunning Justices later "bless" the validity of their unconstitutional "sleeper cell" note about the 14th Amendment in Cantwell by simply referencing Cantwell in conjunction with the 14th A. in the Everson opinion, but they conserved the momentum of their ploy in Everson by planting a new unconstitutional "sleeper cell" note attacking our religious freedoms.

Are we having fun yet?

As I've repeatedly noted, the Everson opinion is where Justice Black misreprented Jefferson and the intentions of the Founders by using Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to help justify Blacks treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause. You've hopefully already seen the following paragraph from Everson, the paragraph containing Black's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause and Jefferson's "wall of separation" words:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 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

Fortunately for those of us who are dedicated to defending our constitutional freedoms, given Jefferson's understanding of the 10th Amendment, Justice Black probably couldn't have picked a worse person to help justify his treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause.

[Amendment10]

Good point concerning 1 Samuel 8.

Consider that Jesus warning about the "traditions of men" in Mark 7:7-9... seem just as applicable to politically correct interpretations of law of the land as it is to politically correct interpretations of the Scriptures.

2 Timothy 4:3 is also applicable to politically correct interpretations of the law.

Also consider that while Jefferson was initially enthusiastic about the new federal government, that he noted a disturbing appetite of the federal government with respect to power.

"It is a singular phenomenon that while our State governments are the very best in the world, without exception or comparison, our General Government has, in the rapid course of nine or ten years, become more arbitrary and has swallowed more of the public liberty than even that of England." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:65

Given Jefferson's concerns about the federal government's lust for power, is it any wonder that the Supreme Court has unconstitutionally robbed the states of their power to address religious issues?

[Amendment10]

Note that, as far as I can tell (corrections welcome, I could be wrong), the Lemon opinion fails to reference the 10th Amendment in any way, just as the pivotal Cantwell and Everson opinions failed to mention it. Crooked Justices twisted the honest interpretation of the 14th A. in Cantwell just as they twisted the reasonable interpretation of the establishment clause in Everson.

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

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

Also, please consider appling the "10th Amendment test" to the opinions of any questionable c&s court cases.

[Amendment10]

"[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, ever one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Regarding the above extract, note that Jefferson refers to Christianity with respect to the United States. The terms US, USA, United States, United States of America, the government of the United States of America, the General Government, etc., are used in historical documents including the Constitution as references to the federal government and not to the state governments? The state governments are referred to simply as the state(s). Consider the wording of the Section 1 of the 15th Amendment for example:

"15th Amendment, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Part of the confusion concerning the unique 10th Amendment powers of the states is that many people regard USA and similar terms as references to both the federal and state governments. This misunderstanding gives secularists a better lever on forcing the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of religious powers on the federal government onto the states.

[Amendment10]

"I'm a brass tacks kind of guy. What exactly is it you want? I have a sinking feeling that you're advocating a system in which individual liberty would be sacrificed upon the alter of the almighty state. I find tyrannical states no more appealing than a tyrannical federal government. It's the tyranny that stinks not the level of government it emanates from."

Please bear with me if you've heard the following from me before.

I'm defending the honest interpretation of the Constitution, particularly where our religious freedoms are concerned.

The problem is that the Bill of Rights was incomplete as formal checks on the 10th A. protected powers of the states were overlooked. The resulting imbalance of state government powers and personal rights undoubtedly helped to precipitate the Civil War. The honest interpretation of the post Civil War 14th Amendment finally put in writing what the Founder's had overlooked concerning limiting the unique powers of the state governments. That was the idea anyway.

Unfortunately, instead of balancing the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal federal rights like they should, secular Justices have created a situation opposite to the pre-Civil War unchecked 10th A. powers of the states. Secular Justices have done so by ignoring the 10th Amendment powers of the states and using the politically correct, anti-religious expression interpretation of the 14th Amendment to unconstitutionally force the 1st A.'s prohibitions on religious powers of the federal government onto the state governments.

Fortunately, Justice Reed, undoubtedly frustrated with Justice Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, noted the honest relationships of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed indicated that it is the job of Justices who take their oaths to defend the Constitution seriously to balance the 10th A. protected powers of the states with 14th A. protected personal federal rights:

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg

So based on Jefferson's notes about the 1st and 10th Amendments and Justice Reed's notes about the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments, the states have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.

My bottom line is that even if I wanted absolute c&s separation, I will not tolerate a Supreme Court that has mutinied against the Article 5 power of the people to properly amend the Constitution by unlawfully legislating absolute c&s separation from the bench. If the people want absolute c&s separation then they can quit sitting on their hands and exercise their Article 5 powers to properly amend the Constitution for absolute c&s separation.

And in case you haven't already guessed, I am no longer a prisoner of conscious to the Court's bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.