Northern Illinois University removes Bibles from campus hotel after complaint

Chicago Tribune ^ | 11/24/15 | Manya Brachear Pashman

[Amendment10]

Regarding the removal of Bibles from campus hotel, please consider the following. The constitutionally unustifiable controversy is evidence that FDRs activist justices twisted the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), in order to rob the states of their 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to address religious issues. Bingham will be discussed shortly.

Let us start this discussion by showing how FDRs thug justices misrepresented ”atheist” Thomas Jefferson and his ”wall of church and state separation” with respect to the Founding States intentions for the 1st Amendments (1A) prohibition on Congresss power to regulate religion.

It turns out that the real Thomas Jefferson had explained that the states had made 10A in part to clarify that the states had retained uniquely to themselves the power to address religious issues, regardless that the states had made 1A in part to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.

” 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: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; . . . ” - Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 .

Although 14A later expressly applied only the Constitutions privileges and immunities to the states, FDRs anti-state sovereignty justices argued that 14A also applied 1As prohibition on Congresss power to make religion-related laws to the states.

"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 [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.

But one thing that FDRs activist justices wrongly ignored concerning the statement from Cantwell is the following. The congressional record shows that Bingham had clarified that 14A did not take away state powers.

• ”The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)

• ”No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired . . .” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)

• ”Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence.” - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

Based on Binghams clarification that 14A preserved state powers, the states still had the 10A-protected power, as Jefferson had indicated, to make religion-based laws regardless of 14A.

In fact, Justice Reed had noted that it was the ob of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A protected 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.

But a more powerful example of evidence of wrongdoing by FDRs thug justices concerning their stifling of 10A-protected state power to legislatively address religious issues, evidenced by the Jefferson excerpt above, is the following. Based on the language in the Cantwell excerpt above, FDRs justices essentially used their PC interpretation of 14A as an excuse to effectively interpolate a constitutional amendment that prohibits the states from making religion-based laws, just like 1A prohibits Congress from making such laws.

Consider that such an amendment to the Constitution might read in part as follows.

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."

But here is the clincher regarding the Courts dishonest argument in Cantwell that 14A ”reasonably” applied 1As prohibition on religious powers to Congress to the states. Several years after the ratification of 14A (1868), Representative James Blaine pushed for an anti-Roman Catholic amendment to the Constitution (1875) that began with the exact wording that the ”hypothetical” wording above that FDRs thug justices seemingly based their statement in Cantwell on.

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

So what FDRs anti-Catholic justices most certainly did not want citizens to know concerning their tortured interpolation of 14A in Cantwell, claiming that it applied 1As prohibition on religious laws to Congress to the states, is that the pre-17th Amendment Senate had failed to pass Rep. Blaines amendment in the Constitutions Article V amendment process, thus completely discrediting, imo, the Courts later interpolation of 14A with respect to 1A in Cantwell.