[truthfreedom]

This is the first Supreme Court case to use the phrase "a wall of separation between church and State."

This is the case that put that phrase "in" the Constitution.

Many believe that this case, and the cases that follow after this one, were wrongly decided.

Many believe that Clarence Thomas has thought long and hard about this matter and his interpretation, in Elk Grove, is the proper way to interpret the establishment clause.

Many believe that Everson, like Roe v Wade, should be overturned.

[ICE-FLYER]

The LEFT has been lying about this since 1947 and again in 1962. Take a look at the Congressional Record of the US Congress surrounding the debate on the 1st Amendment. They CAN'T lie about this but they purposefully try to hide it and do not teach it...it violates their man centered religion.

"August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. (Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789)

[muawiyah]

If a specific expression is not in the Constitution it is, in fact, not in the Constitution. We have a written Constitution so such matters can be easily determined.

"wall of separation" or "separation of church and state" just aren't in the Constitution.

Make of it what you will, the expressions aren't there, never were there, never will be there.

[Sgt_Schultze]

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.

Many of these things were going on in the US after ratification without furor from Congress. Below is quoted from a column by M. Stanton Evans in Imprimis Magazine in 1995 (Full Link) Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

...In South Carolina, for example, the Constitution of 1778 said that “the Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed…the established religion of the state.” It further said that no religious society could be considered a church unless it agreed “that there is one eternal God and a future state of rewards and punishment; that the Christian religion is the true religion; that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration.” South Carolina also asserted that “no person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”

Similar statements can be gleaned from other state enactments of the period. The Maryland Constitution of 1776 decreed, for instance, “a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.” New Jersey that year expressed its idea of toleration by saying that “no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right.” Massachusetts, in 1780, authorized a special levy to support “public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality”—a formula adopted verbatim by New Hampshire.

Official support for religious faith and state religious requirements for public office persisted well after adoption of the First Amendment. The established church of Massachusetts was not abolished until 1833. In New Hampshire, the requirement that one had to be Protestant to serve in the legislature was continued until 1877. In New Jersey, Roman Catholics were not permitted to hold office until 1844. In Maryland, the stipulation that one had to be a Christian lasted until 1826. As late as 1835, one had to be a Protestant to take office in North Carolina; until 1868, the requirement was that one had to be a Christian; thereafter that one had to profess a belief in God.

[Hoodat]

The Everson case was correctly decided. The Court ruled that parents who sent their children to parochial school should have the same access to government transportation benefits as did parents who sent their children to public schools. It was a victory for those whose kids attended religious-based private school. Unfortunately, liberals have spun it as being a defeat instead of a victory.

The biggest fault with the decision centers on the decision by FDR to appoint a Klansman to the Supreme Court. But hey, what do you expect from Democrats?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I wish Miss O’Donnell had been more familiar with the writings of Clarence Thomas so she could have better jumped on Mr. Coons’ bland assertion of lefty PC Constitutional “wisdom”.

[Noob1999]

Geez, I must have one of them “abridged versions” of the Constitution, ‘cause my copy of the Constitution only has sixteen words within the First Amendment about religion:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...”

I’ll jus have to trot down to my DNC headquarters an’git me a copy of this here new Constitution!

[Monorprise]

“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.”

That would be why the 1st amendment reads this:

“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.”

Why specify congress if you meant any law making body?

O’Donnell’s mistake was actually to read the constitution and presume that its text mean anything. Thats apparently a big no-no in law-school that gets you laughed at...

Maybe thats why everyone hates lawyers as much or more then they hate politicians? Lawyers thing they are the law makers in the court, that the rulings they help bring about redefining our constitution are somehow legit usurpations of our constitution...

[Nextrush]

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.

[Nextrush]

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.

[NTHockey]

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?

[HushTX]

To be blunt, the phrase "means at least this" is a phrase that can never be accurately or appropriately applied to the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States is written on a fifth grade reading level. It is concise yet complete. Study of the process by which the document was written and established reveals that there was a great deal of deliberation over what should be included and how to phrase each clause so that there was no question as to what was intended. Interpretation is not necessary.

To say something "means at least" suggests that there is more to the document than meets the eye, and that is absolutely untrue. It is one of the most clearly written government documents in history. To pursue interpretation of the text is to open the door for abuse.

When the Constitution says "Congress" that is what it means. It was written in such a manner as to apply to the Congress of the United States and to apply it to the state governments is abuse, plain and simple.