Posted on 10/19/2010 8:06:43 PM PDT by truthfreedom
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 entertaining 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 form 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at law.umkc.edu ...
Because the founders meant Congress specifically and not the state legislatures. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire all had de facto state religions that were supported with state taxes.
Hugo Black’s rewriting of the Constitution in 1947 has become some sort of dogmatic cultic belief over the last 60 years.
I go with the founders and not with Hugo Black.
Hugo Black’s rewriting of the Constitution in 1947 has become some sort of dogmatic cultic belief over the last 60 years.
I go with the founders and not with Hugo Black.
The irony of Black’s position is that it is going to be turned against the LIBs. Conseder federal intrusion into TN regarding a new mosque. The federal government is supporting a religion over the local community’s objection.
Knock, knock, is anybody at home at ACLU?
Although unfortunately presented inarticulately, Ms. O’Donnell is correct that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” are an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
Although unfortunately presented inarticulately, Ms. O’Donnell is correct that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of “separation of church and state” are an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
I agree with anther article on this forum that the one of the key things we need to do to restore Constitutional government is to destroy respect for stare decisis.
Even with random judges makign random caothic judgements the net ballace would be more infavor of the constitution then now exist.
Simply because when people loses the ability to predict how the court will issue its edicts, they will have little choice to follow the law as written. better still they might loses respect for the court which will force the same court to reearn that respect.
There is a quote in Star ship troopers that rings true, something given has no value. If we are simply to give the Federal court respect they will abuses that respect.
It should be their job to preswade us in general, and their power to resolve matters only on individual issues. which is anther thing destroying stare decisis would accomplish for us. Without respect for past rulings(stare decisis) every case would suddenly become a case by case matter, thus abolishing the courts lawmaking power.
So yes destroy stare decisis!
I think it would be of great fun and possibly utility to make fun of the law-school and law-school students who couldn’t even quote the 1st amendment correctly.
Then again it is of corruption the corruption of the power federal court doctrine of stare decisis gives them as lawyers in making law thou court rulings that makes their acceptance of the courts incorporation doctrine and that of the courts new and antithetical meaning of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause.(now imposing atheism upon the states and people) Now in the light of the power it gives them in their profession as the ones who argue and work with the court, their “judgment” sounds rather corrupt in its self-serving nature.
So they are either evil or they are idiots. Either way i do not think i would want to attend their law-school.
As yo your hypothetical solution of new amendments to correct the baseless errors of the court, I think that solution is get us into a race against a lawless court which we cannot win. Simply put its a lot easier, faster, and expedient to choose to ignore the writing of an amendment then it is to get 2/3rd of the States(in convention) or congress to propose a new amendment and 3/4ths to agree to that amendment.
In short the court can rewrite our constitution in it’s edicts 10 times faster then we could ever hope to correct them with new amendments. We must address the power of the Federal court(and government) or all of this is useless.
If a Constitution is a contract among the people who’s explicit propose is to protect them from the evils of limitless government, then the Constitution can be of no utility so long as it is defined and enforced exclusively by that same government.
If the U.S. Constitution is to mean anything at all it must be defined by those who have empowered the same to help protect their rights form the usurpation of government not the same government which usurped them.
Geting rid of stare decisis and thus rendering each case to a case by case basis will go a long way towards limiting the law making damage of the court, but it will not go anywhere near far enough, we still got the same basic conflict of interest in that Federal justices are appointed by the same power drunk federal politicians who’s acts they are charged with checking.
As it is they are only a fitting instrument for the resolution of disputes between the Federal executive and Federal legislative branch, and perhaps dispute between individual States in which the Federal government is not a party.
The funny thing about getting in to law school is that the LSAT has 2 sections about LOGIC. Logic games and logical reasoning. Or at least it did. You assume, before going to law school, that law school is all about logic. Then you get there and first week you realize that logic is not too relevant at all really. You read these cases, trying to find that logic that you assume is there, and it isn’t. Everson is an excellent case. A better test for LSAT would be lying with a straight face.
everson is a terrible decision and should be overturned.
Thank you for the heads-up.
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.