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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Ignorance: ACLU’s Empty Establishment Claims (This is a serious hit piece)
The Federalist ^ | Feb 10, 2007 | Paul Madison

Posted on 02/10/2007 11:06:31 AM PST by AZRepublican

The American Civil Liberties Union again is suing under the twisted rational the fourteenth amendment somehow disables local government from displaying anything remotely religious in nature. The latest victim targeted by the ACLU is the rural Florida county of Dixie, which has a Ten Commandments monument at the steps of its courthouse.

The lawsuit says the monument violates the First and 14th Amendments because it is not part of a historical display and because the uniquely Christian message of the Ten Commandments on a government building could intimidate people with different religious beliefs.

Well I’d say if anyone finds any community supported display in the United States of America “intimidating,” then they better cover their eyes and return to wherever it was they came from as quickly as possible. The Colonies did not fight a war for the right to be independent and to govern their own internal affairs as they deem fit, to only later be bullied by either a national government clothed in limited authority, or fascist groups alleging creative prohibitions upon their right to do so.

ACLU attorney Glenn Katon thinks "Dixie County is, in effect, thumbing its nose at the Constitution by putting up this display."

I will argue here that in fact its the ACLU who is “thumbing its nose at the Constitution,” made possible by a very misguided United States Supreme Court that seems unable to separate facts from fiction. The result of this inability of the court to comprehend the language and history behind the amendment is that organizations, such as the ACLU, can terrorize municipal governments at will through fictional claims and arguments that can be said to only be founded upon hogwash.

The adoption of the fourteenth amendment changed nothing as far as local government is concerned, and the States surrendered nothing to the national government in regards to rights retained since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Soon after its adoption of the fourteenth amendment, the framers of the fourteenth established legislative precedent over its meaning and application, something the Supreme Court and the ACLU must ignore at all costs in order for their bogus incorporation theory to be remotely seen has having any semblance of validity.

Both the House and Senate established legislative precedent for fourteenth amendment construction, which in turn the court in Slaughterhouse would later confirm. We can thank both Susan B. Anthony and Mrs. Woodhull for the precedent established by the very framers of the fourteenth amendment themselves, including John Bingham.

Responding to Mrs. Woodhull’s memorial, the House judiciary committee released the following report:

The clause of the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article two section four. The fourteenth amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.

The committee report further added: “The words ‘citizens of the United States,’ and ‘citizens of the States,’ as employed in the fourteenth amendment, did not change or modify the relations of citizens of the State and the nation as they existed under the original Constitution.”

The Senate judiciary unanimously adopted the same opinion as the House judiciary in response to the memorial by Susan B. Anthony.

Both the House and Senate judiciary shoots down the silliness that has prevailed for too under phony fourteenth amendment jurisprudence that claims the amendment magically “incorporates ” the establishment clause against the individual States. This in return, as the broken theory goes, makes municipal government equally restricted by the first amendment’s establishment clause.

If the fourteenth amendment can be said to incorporate anything, it would in fact be article four, section two – which should come to no surprise to anyone because of the identical language.

After the civil war, the eleven states in rebellion were required to submit new Constitutions that conformed to the provisions of the fourteenth amendment in order to have their representation in Congress restored. Not one State Constitution that was found conforming to the fourteenth amendment contained anything remotely as disabling either the State legislature or, municipal government, from having anything to do with respecting an establishment of religion.

If it really was the purpose of the fourteenth amendment to make the entire Bill of Rights found in the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution, an equal restriction against each State, than members of the 39th Congress would had insisted upon every rebel Constitution to include a provision against respecting an establishment of religion prior to approval. It is a fact that the establishment clause never once was discussed during the entire debates approving the fourteenth amendment.

John A Bingham, the fourteenth’s first section co-author and its acting floor manager in the House, responded to allegations the amendment intended to do more then secure individual protections against abusive State legislation in the administration of justice:

[I] repel the suggestion made here in the heat of debate, that the committee or any of its members who favor this proposition seek in any form to mar the Constitution of the country, or take away from any State the right that belongs to it, or from any citizen of any State any right that belongs to him under that Constitution.

It is one thing to not desire either the federal or the State legislatures from respecting any single religious sect by law or, publicly support any one religious doctrine with tax dollars, but it is another matter entirely to disable local communities from recognizing religious teachings or symbols within their respective communities. Not only would such an act mar the U.S. Constitution, it would destroy citizens’ privilege or immunity to collectively respect religious principles or traditions within their own communities under the tenth amendment.

There is no way in the world the establishment clause can be judicially made a limitation against municipal governments through the fourteenth amendment without one "thumbing their nose" at both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Because of the framers own established legislative precedent, and the purpose for which the fourteenth was adopted to serve, leaves the ACLU owing Dixie County an apology.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aclu; bor; censorship; churchandstate; establishment; religiousfreedom; scotus; tencommandments

1 posted on 02/10/2007 11:06:38 AM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Wonder what happens when sculptures of the Qur'an begin appearing in front of courthouses? Just curious....


2 posted on 02/10/2007 11:13:59 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

When is our government going to take away their tax exemptness? I am sick of them trying to ruin America.


3 posted on 02/10/2007 11:15:55 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Or the various Islamic flags flying atop of our own flag.


4 posted on 02/10/2007 11:17:15 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

All one needs to do is go back to the formation of the ACLU and see WHO it was, and WHY. The connections to communism and anti-Americanism are in the very roots of the organization. And don't let the appearance of the initials FDR suprise you when you investigate the history of the ACLU.


5 posted on 02/10/2007 11:18:57 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

By the way, I agree that they have every right to have this monument there, but we must think about the question I brought up and how rulings will be used in other cases. I did not mean to detract from the substance of the article in any way.


6 posted on 02/10/2007 11:23:42 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"a national government clothed in limited authority"

As Charlie Brown said to Linus when Linus said, "You know how it is, Charlie. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose," "Sigh. Wouldn't it be nice."


7 posted on 02/10/2007 11:26:31 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

... or a Dearborn community display of a beheaded mannequin.


8 posted on 02/10/2007 11:27:52 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
The American Civil Liberties Union again is suing under the twisted rational the fourteenth amendment somehow disables local government from displaying anything remotely religious in nature. The latest victim targeted by the ACLU is the rural Florida county of Dixie, which has a Ten Commandments monument at the steps of its courthouse.

The lawsuit says the monument violates the First and 14th Amendments because it is not part of a historical display and because the uniquely Christian message ...

Gee,... bet our Jewish Freepers are surprised to find that the law that Moses brought down on the stone tablets carved by GOD are uniquely Christian.

9 posted on 02/10/2007 11:29:34 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

> Wonder what happens when sculptures of the Qur'an begin
> appearing in front of courthouses?

Won't happen unless Big Brother and federal courts intervene and open communities to floods of muslims against their consent. I agree with Madison in another of his articles that early settlers did not come here to establish freedom of religion, but came here to establish their own religious sect and were not tolarant of other sects that ran countered to their own.


10 posted on 02/10/2007 11:29:52 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA; AZRepublican

Highly recommend two books "The ACLU vs, AMERICA" and "Red Star of Hollywood" Fast, informative, shocking, and infuriating reads


11 posted on 02/10/2007 11:32:06 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
It depends on which version of the Commandments they used.

What, you thought they were all alike?

12 posted on 02/10/2007 11:36:54 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
...the uniquely Christian message of the Ten Commandments...

The last time I looked the Ten Commandments were in the old testament.

13 posted on 02/10/2007 11:37:12 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"open communities to floods of muslims against their consent.

Community consent to who moves there went out with Jim Crow.


14 posted on 02/10/2007 11:38:39 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

I wasn't referring to citizens of the United States, but immigrants and asylum seekers from other parts of the world.


15 posted on 02/10/2007 11:41:29 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

What have you got against immigrants and asylum seekers?


16 posted on 02/10/2007 11:48:45 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Just a procedural niggle, really: once we overthrow 100 years of jurisprudence and toss out the idea of incorporation, shall we just go whole hog, throw out Marbury v Madison and get rid of judicial review altogether?


17 posted on 02/10/2007 11:50:27 AM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Just a procedural niggle, really: once we overthrow 100 years of jurisprudence and toss out the idea of incorporation, shall we just go whole hog, throw out Marbury v Madison and get rid of judicial review altogether?


18 posted on 02/10/2007 11:51:39 AM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Is it the willful omission by the MSM that prevents the truths about the ACLU and other marxist organizations (like Democrats) from being presented? Or is it just an ignorant public?


19 posted on 02/10/2007 11:54:39 AM PST by manic4organic (Send a care package through USO today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

> What have you got against immigrants and asylum seekers?

Nothing as long as the control of their migration remains where the constitution left it: with the States and not Congress.


20 posted on 02/10/2007 11:56:17 AM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
It depends on which version of the Commandments they used.

You are making a lot out of nothing.

I went to your reference, and found that they had the same substance. They were not in the same order, but they give the same instruction.

There may also be some differences because of translation differences, but that does not change the substance of what is being taught.

21 posted on 02/10/2007 12:02:03 PM PST by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

bookmark


22 posted on 02/10/2007 12:04:54 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

If the court was acting under Marbury v Madison than the ACLU could not exist.

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution have that rank."


23 posted on 02/10/2007 12:06:48 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Any one thinking that the Ten Commandments are uniquely Christian needs to regroup. Last I read, the Ten were passed from God to Moses, an absolutely, positively, Jewish patriarch. The Commandments, being universally good for society and man, were taken into Christianity.


24 posted on 02/10/2007 12:08:21 PM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
It depends on which version of the Commandments they used.

The site you reference is pure anti-Christian propaganda.

It says, "One of the best-kept secrets in the discussions on the Ten Commandments concerns..." (emphasis is mine) followed by information which is well known to anyone with the least knowledge of the Bible. All is stated as if this is some huge conspiracy.

Give us a break!

25 posted on 02/10/2007 12:14:25 PM PST by etlib (No creature without tentacles has ever developed true intelligence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
That site lost all credibility with me on the 6th commandment citing thou shall not kill as the words.

The correct translation is thou shall not murder

Big difference.

26 posted on 02/10/2007 12:21:40 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("I fear we have woken a sleeping giant and filled her with a terrible resolve" - Osama 9-11-01?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

Once you start throwing out centuries of settled law (which is what the argument against incorporation argues we should do) what makes you think you have the power to stop the yarn unravelling?


27 posted on 02/10/2007 12:27:34 PM PST by voltaires_zit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

The Rehnquist court had already started the unraveling of the incorporation theory. Many so-called settled precedents have been unraveled over time to bring law within the limitations imposed upon congress and federal judiciary by the letter of the constitution.


28 posted on 02/10/2007 12:37:59 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Are you kidding? Once the Muslims get enough votes in any community that's exactly what will happen. And the ACLU will lead the charge for Muslim rights.

There is already a PUBLIC high school in Dearborn, Michigan with a 99% Muslim population that has allowed "prayer rooms" for students to pray to Mecca five times a day.

Is anybody covering this? The ACLU in Michigan has no problem with it. It's just an "aspect of their culture".

You must understand that liberals have two standards, one for conservatives and twenty-five others for whatever else comes up.


29 posted on 02/10/2007 12:43:07 PM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

They had no problem removing the crucifix on the California seal even though that was historical.


30 posted on 02/10/2007 12:47:13 PM PST by rbosque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

"Once the Muslims get enough votes in any community that's exactly what will happen."

Exactly. Which is why I brought it up. So, no, I'm not kidding.


31 posted on 02/10/2007 12:50:15 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Once you start throwing out centuries of settled law (which is what the argument against incorporation argues we should do) what makes you think you have the power to stop the yarn unravelling?

Yup, Brown v Board of Ed certainly unravelled the yarn.

32 posted on 02/10/2007 1:12:19 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Just a procedural niggle, really: once we overthrow 100 years of jurisprudence and toss out the idea of incorporation, shall we just go whole hog, throw out Marbury v Madison and get rid of judicial review altogether?

Idea of incorporation? Which idea would that be? The one that incorporates 5 Justices idea that the US Constitution prohibits a valedictorian from witnessing and then incorporate that to the states or the idea of incorporation that doesn't incorporate the second amendment to the states?

33 posted on 02/10/2007 1:16:56 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
To understand just where the ACLU is coming from, in its assault on the continuity of American culture, see Left Wing Word Games & Religious Freedom.

The ACLU are, and have been, a serious threat to our institutions. They are not just a group of naive "Liberals."

William Flax

34 posted on 02/10/2007 1:25:16 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

I really enjoyed that link you provided, and have bookmarked it. Thanks.


35 posted on 02/10/2007 1:49:28 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

Nothing against those who seek it legally.

Huge problems with those who come here illegally, and with those who play word games by calling illegal aliens "immigrants". Sophomoric.


36 posted on 02/10/2007 3:34:05 PM PST by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

The San Diego Union has taken to calling them 'entrants.'

Funny how that sounds so much like 'entrance.'


37 posted on 02/10/2007 4:15:35 PM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

entrance

......in a trance

ahem


38 posted on 02/10/2007 5:14:52 PM PST by combat_boots (The MSM: State run Democrat media masquerading as corporations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

BTTT!


39 posted on 02/10/2007 7:21:25 PM PST by Pagey (Horrible Hillary Clinton is Bad For America, Bad For Business and Bad For MY Stomach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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