Posted on 05/04/2017 9:43:39 AM PDT by aimhigh
Absolutely correct. The standard for morality is religion, nothing else.
of course ..
Yup. Doesn’t matter if the EOs are valid or not as long as they can get them tied up in the courts, they get delayed. Same thing is gonna happen with the drilling EO.
Awesome pic!
First Amendment scholars tell me they would be shocked if the Court ruled otherwise, and it would go against a generation of precedent. In the case of this Executive Order, I believe it is long overdue. A religious organization cannot be denied the fundamental right of political free speech simply because it is a religious organization. That fundamental right is a lot more precious than recycled tires.
The ACLU will rightfully lose this one.
Just for once Trump needs to keep the rule in place PENDING litigation, rather than deferring to so-called judges on the District level. Let them win at the SCOTUS. THEN he will suspend it.
The legislation is Lyndon Johnsons answer to religious Texans both R and D, that would have voted against him and his godless democrat party at every turn. So he and his congress made it illegal to politic from the pulpit.
my granddad used to refer to the ACLU as the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit
Eat that Sausage Biscuit!
IRS needs to audit the ACLU and all its executives and contributors. (The sword cuts both ways).
Good one!
Do what the good Lord shows you is fit to do.
I might still go, but I would look at him/her sadly, with a prayer to the Lord. That one day he/she would be quickened to the outreach of the Lord to even him/her.
I think the people who carry the blessing of God are sometimes too quick to shy away from situations where the people in direst need of such blessings are.
Captain Obvious comes to save from the evil Captain Willful Ignorance.
I have a big problem with possessed people handling my food. His spiritual situation is very tragic but a counter at McDonalds is not a good venue for witnessing. Not for me anyway. We have a gay bar in town. That is another good example of a really bad place to try witnessing.
While the 1st Amendment (1A) expressly prohibits Congress from making laws dealing with religious expression, free speech and other basic rights, the 14th Amendment (14A) effectively changed this imo.
More specifically, Congress now has the 14A authority to make laws that strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections. The Supreme Court had clarified this as follows.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Also consider this. Religious protections have taken a hit in the USA due to the ongoing “civil war” between Protestants and Catholics imo. (“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined (NIV).” —Jesus, Matthew 12:25)
With all due respect to Protestants, 19th century Protestants first tried to stifle Catholicism (sectarianism) with the proposed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution. But the proposed amendment was killed in the pre-17th Amendment (17A) ratification Senate; the proposed Blaine Amendment never got proposed to the states, corrections welcome.
Sadly, it seems that “zealous,” post-17A ratification Protestant Supreme Court justices later resurrected the failed Blaine Amendment. They did so by effectively politically “amending” it to the Constitution from the bench, arguing that 14A of the “living” Constitution applied 1A’s prohibition on certain powers of Congress to the states.
Again, they argued this regardless that the previously proposed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, which would have saved them the trouble of twisting lawmaker’s intentions for 14A, had died in Article V amendment process.
The following previously posted material argues the politically correct resurrection of the failed Blaine Amendment in greater detail.
—————
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 1A’s 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 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 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 Bingham’s 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 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-17A 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 ACLU is not suing because they determined the order doesn’t actually do anything.
But the ACLU won’t touch the prohibition of free speech by conservatives or libertarians at federally funded CA public universities.
BTW, anyone else notice that there are NEVER any charges against leftist religious groups or churches when they push leftist politics? Rhetorical question, I know...
Mark
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.