that includes muzzie prayer, right?
Doesn’t the Supreme Court and Congress open with a prayer.
Don’t both have chaplains?
Obama really did a number on the Fourth Circuit. It’s the world turned upside down.
“Freedom of religion is under attack. “
No, basic Freedom is under attack. Religious freedom is just one element of same.
What’s next? Appellate court declares all US money unconstitutional because it says “ In God We Trust”.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Now, what this actually means folks, is that Christianity is illegal.
SCOTUS decision a couple of years ago said it was okay to open a government meeting with prayer.
So SOCTUS decisions that go the way commiepukes don’t like don’t count now?
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Your honor.
If the US was not in the first 3 words, I would never have known this was happening in this country.
How many times does this horse$hit have to go the Supreme Court and get overruled . . . what a disgusting waste of taxpayers’ money? Just plain aggravating.
Screw them. People are free to pray and worship wherever they wish.
Stop wasting taxpayers money over crap like this.
Personally, I would counterclaim against ANYONE who brought suits like this, on the basis of attempts to curtail or deny First Amendment rights.
CONGRESS shall make no law...
We need to repeal the 14th Amendment, and wipe out:
—Roe v. Wade
—anchor babies
—the incorporation doctrine
Since all former slaves are deceased, the original purpose of the amendment no longer exists, and all its effects are mischievous.
These lower courts demand we respect their decisions when they flat refuse to accept higher court precedents. It is vital that Trump pack the courts with solid conservatives, very young and very conservative.
Hasn’t this situation been litigated before? The Marxists have been arguing to get prayer out of local govt, schools, etc for all my life. Seems like we have won these cases before. Is this really the first time this has gotten this far?
I do believe that the enemy is just trying to gum up the works with as much as it can regardless of whether or not the issue has already been heard and decided.
May ALL Court Judges of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit who issued a 10-5 be required to ride the Iron Stallion from movie “The VIKINGS”.
These clown judges need to be impeached. They have no knowledge of the Constitution.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm
I wonder whether the US Senate Chaplain, Reverend Barry C. Black, knows that his job is unconstitutional and has been since the first US Senate met in April of 1789.
What about the US House Chaplain - Reverend Patrick J. Conroy?
"The United States Court of Appeals [??? emphasis added] for the Fourth Circuit issued a 10-5 decision on Friday ruling that Rowan County, N.C., county commissioners cannot begin official sessions with prayer, ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
From related threads …
I don’t know what the law schools are teaching, but it’s evidently not the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
So with all due respect to mom & pop, please consider the following.
As a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the difference between legislative, executive and judicial powers, we now have the following major constitutional problem.
Regardless that the Founding States made the federal Constitution to prohibit Congress from making laws dealing with religious expression and free speech, anti-Christian factions long ago seem to have discovered that they could effectively repeal the 1st Amendment (1A) by doing the following.
Given voters who don’t have a grip on legislative, executive and judicial powers, all that anti-Christian factions needed to do was to encourage activist judges to effectively legislate politically correct, anti-religious expression laws from the bench, such judges actually stealing unique, 10th Amendment-protected state powers to address religious issues by doing so.
Sadly, regardless that Congress has the constitutional authority to deal with such judges, since corrupt Congress wrongly remains silent when judges water down first amendment protections, low-information citizens who value religious expression probably get the wrong impression that this is how the system is supposed to work and prematurely give up fighting the system for their rights.
Noting that patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots for the 2018 elections, candidates who will send a bunch of judges home if elected, the rest of this post, borrowed from other threads, gives an idea how the country got into anti-Christian, separation of church and state political correctness.
—————
Let’s start this discussion by showing how FDR’s thug justices misrepresented “atheist” Thomas Jefferson and his “wall of church and state separation” with respect to the Founding States' intentions for the 1st Amendment’s (1A) prohibition on Congress’s 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 the 14th Amendment (14A) later expressly applied only the Constitution’s privileges and immunities to the states, FDR’s anti-state sovereignty, anti-Catholic justices wrongly (imo) argued that 14A also applied 1A’s prohibition on Congress’s power to make religion-related laws to the states. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
"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 what FDR’s activist justices wrongly ignored concerning the Cantwell excerpt is the following. The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A 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 Bingham’s clarification that 14A preserved state powers, regardless what the Cantrell justices wanted everybody to think about the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of certain powers now applying to the states, the states still have the 10A-protected power, as Jefferson had indicated, to make religion-based laws, such laws now reasonably limited by 14A.
In fact, Justice Reed had noted that it was the job 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 more powerful evidence of wrongdoing by FDR’s thug justices concerning their stifling of 10A-protected state power to legislatively address religious issues, power evidenced by the Jefferson excerpt above, is the following.
Based on the language in the Cantwell excerpt above, FDRs justices essentially used their politically correct 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 Court’s dishonest argument in Cantwell that 14A “reasonably” applied 1A’s 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." —failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution
So what FDR’s anti-Catholic justices probably didn’t want citizens to know concerning their tortured interpolation of 14A in Cantwell, claiming that 14A applied 1A’s prohibition on religious laws to Congress to the states, is that the pre-17th Amendment Senate had killed Rep. Blaine’s amendment in the Constitution’s Article V amendment process, thus completely discrediting imo, the Court's later politically correct interpolation of 14A with respect to 1A in Cantwell.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Again, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots for the 2018 elections, candidates who will send a bunch of judges home if elected.
This decision by the King’s Royal Court would have the Founding Fathers running for their muskets.