1st, 10th,14th Amendments

Religions > Atheism > 1st, 10th,14th Amendments

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	21 Jan 2006 10:09:57 AM
Object:	1st, 10th,14th Amendments

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf0bfa460cd2b8b6?hl=en&
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.education, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian, alt.atheism
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:09:27 -0500
Local: Wed, Nov 2 2005 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: Knickkkers doesn't want to hear about the 10th Amendment
and prayer in school
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jefferson's historical extract has no bearing, as you have been told
time and time again, nor does the 10th Amendment have any bearing on
the Establishment Clause.
My evidence:
Item #1 (Kindly note the very last sentence in particular.The
following was written by a lawyer)
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law Written by Susan Batte
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the
establishment of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths
for office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of
Church and State by providing nothing in the constitution that
supports the idea that Government as Government is allowed to support
any religion for any reason and by specifically prohibiting the
primary political mechanism for supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with
the Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution
concerning religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was
ratified and was not designated as repealing any provision in the
Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for
establishing religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an
individual as an individual and not as government to exercise the
religion of his or her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e.,
vouchers, welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion
by prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion - Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of
appropriation bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of
"establishment" would have to be broad, and in fact the broad
interpretation of "establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D.
(Oxford English Dictionary) sets out a 1561 definition of
establishment as "a means of establishing; something that strengthens,
supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s - 1800s, "establishment"
could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out
the following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such
relations of the Church to the State as those which are summed up in
the term 'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with
the indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of
religion' refers to all or any religious establishment --- not to one
or some establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion
of "of one Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton
argues, the 1st Amendment was all about stamping out competing
rivalries between Christian sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is
RESPECTING. Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious
institution, be it a 20 member country church or a huge multimillion
member international religion, is an establishment of religion. The
government is forbidden from making any laws, positive or negative
that would pertain to an establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant
only to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by
the Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that
supporting religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However,
such a narrow reading of "Establishment" would need specific language
added to the Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of
the Constitution clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity
as opposed to any other religion or even irreligion. And neither does
the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is
notn implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th
amendment applies the establishment clause against states
http://candst.tripod.com/bthot-lr.htm
**********************************************************************
Item # 2
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as
many people seem to think. The Tenth Amendment was weakened by the
framwers of the constitution
Some facts presented in the URL directly below:
(1)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
That's the Tenth Amendment. It's a cut-and-paste job of a part of the
Articles of Confederation that limited the Confederation government to
powers not EXPRESSLY delegated to it by the Articles. James Madison
carefully knocked the word "expressly" out of the text of the
amendment so that it would not prevent the federal government from
exercising powers not expressly provided by the Constitution but
implied by its provisions and not specifically barred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)
Some scholars believe that those who wrote the Tenth Amendment
purposely made it vague, or fuzzy. Why would they want to do that?
Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781) will
help to explain this. Article 11, like the Tenth Amendment that came
after it, deals with the power of state governments and the federal
government. But Article 11 includes a key word that is not found in
the Tenth Amendment. Pay special attention -to the underlined
[capitalized] word as you read the
Article:
Each State retains its sovereignty [power not controlled by any other
power], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and
right, which is not by this confederation EXPRESSLY delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled. [underlining-capitalized- added]
The word expressly means " directly " or " specifically. " A sign in
a restaurant that sets aside one area expressly for nonsmokers means
"Keep out of this area if you wish to smoke!" A Congress that has only
those powers expressly delegated to itself is also limited. It may do
only those things that the Constitution actually names as its fight.
It may not do anything more. The U.S. government under the Articles
of Confederation was called a body without a head. It was the word
expressly that had chopped the head off that national body.
Those who were present at the 1787 Constitutional Convention
knew how Article II of the Articles of Confederation had weakened the
federal government earlier. Delegates who attended the state
conventions to ratify the Constitution probably knew it, too. The
word expressly didn't bother the Anti-Federalists. In fact, they
pressed hard to have the word expressly included in any amendment
about the "reserved powers" of the states.
---------------------------------------
For more detail see:
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE
TENTH AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c22...
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U11651FDB
************************************************************
PART V
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl...
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
*************************************************************
TO AMEND MEANS WHAT LEGALLY SPEAKING?
Amend. To improve. To change for the better by removing defects or
faults. To change, correct, revise. See Amendment.
Amendment. To change or modify for the better. To alter by
modification, deletion, or addition.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition Centennial
Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing (1991) p 52
***************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was passed which further
altered the relationship between the states and the Federal Government.
******************************************************
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Google Home - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs, Press, & Help
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	21 Jan 2006 01:40:25 PM

"HEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e.,
vouchers, welfare programs, etc.)."
"Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion
by prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of
religion - Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of
appropriation bill to fund any religious enterprise."
1) "--Congress--shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion..." States could, and did. Massachusetts had an official
State religion when it joined the Union. As originaly interpreted, the
First Amendment did not apply to States.
2) The Alpo dog food ingredients label also "cannot be interpreted to
mean that
some governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e.,
vouchers, welfare programs, etc.)", but neither the Alpo ingredients
label nor the First Amendment may be interpreted to mean that --all--
governmental entities --must not-- support religion in any way. First,
there is the historical evidence (above) that some States --had--
religious establishments. Second, "support" is too loose a term. The
State protects churches from fire, as it protects any other building,
and prosecutes assault on priests as it prosecutes assault on anyone
else, so a voucher program which has a primary public purpose of
providing --education-- may include Church-operated schools. Indeed,
it would be unconstitutional anti-religious discrimination to exclude
them. Third, both States and the Federal government allow recipients of
numerous benefits (Pell Grants, the GI Bill, Medicare and Medicaid
vouchers, housoing vouchers) to take their State support to religious
institutions. The exclusion of K-12 education is an exception, not the
rule, so your lawyer friend is wrong on multiple counts.
"Some scholars believe that those who wrote the Tenth Amendment
purposely made it vague, or fuzzy. Why would they want to do that?
Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781) will
help to explain this. Article 11, like the Tenth Amendment that came
after it, deals with the power of state governments and the federal
government. But Article 11 includes a key word that is not found in
the Tenth Amendment. Pay special attention -to the underlined
[capitalized] word as you read the...
" ' Article:
'Each State retains its sovereignty [power not controlled by any other
power], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and
right, which is not by this confederation EXPRESSLY delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.'
"The word expressly means " directly " or " specifically. " A sign in
a restaurant that sets aside one area expressly for nonsmokers means
'Keep out of this area if you wish to smoke!. "
Buckeye/jalison is confused. Consider restaurant 1 witha a sign that
says "Area A is a designated nonsmokring area". We know that this
-means- "no one in area A may smoke" only because we know (infer) what
the people who put the sign up were trying to accomplish. Consider
restaurant 2, with a sign that says "Area B is a designated smoking
area." We understand that --non--smokers may sit in area B. So why may
not smokers sit with their friends in area A? Only because we --know--
what the law (or reataurant policy) is trying to accomplish. Consider
restroom signs which say "Women" and "Men". We understand, so there is
no confusion. But by analogy with
"nonsmoking/smoking" one of these rooms should be unisex and the other
mixed, no?
It's clear what the Americans United for the Separation of Church and
State are trying to accomplish, the reservation of the taxpayers' $400
billion/year K-12 subsidy to schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel. It is also clear that vouchers awarded on neutral criteria
(e.g., to accredited schools) are constitutional and will remain so
until the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's allies (D) win the Presidency and a
majority of the Senate.
http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org
http://www.educationpolicy.org
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
http://www.nlpc.org
http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	22 Jan 2006 12:05:46 PM

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

:|
:|fred wrote:
:|
:|> People don't understand that the States have the power to legislate
:|> religion. If people knew what was going on the people could put a stop
:|> to corrupt interpretations of the Constitution.
:|
:|
:|Regardless of whether the Establishment Clause applied to the States,

The Establishment Clause does apply to the states. There is no regardless
As much as that pains the troll, fred it is still reality unlike his
trolling *****
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	22 Jan 2006 01:46:40 PM

wrote:

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

:|
:|fred wrote:
:|
:|> People don't understand that the States have the power to legislate
:|> religion. If people knew what was going on the people could put a s=

top

:|> to corrupt interpretations of the Constitution.
:|
:|
:|Regardless of whether the Establishment Clause applied to the States,

The Establishment Clause does apply to the states. There is no regardless

Again, anti-religious political correctness is the only reason that the
establishment clause is said to apply to the states. You've got to
completely ignore the 10th A. to believe that the establishment clause
applies to the states.
10th A.: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"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 entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing 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 from 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.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

As much as that pains the troll, fred it is still reality unlike his
trolling *****

*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	22 Jan 2006 12:46:07 PM

wrote:

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

:|
:|fred wrote:
:|
:|> People don't understand that the States have the power to legislate
:|> religion. If people knew what was going on the people could put a s=

top

:|> to corrupt interpretations of the Constitution.
:|
:|
:|Regardless of whether the Establishment Clause applied to the States,

The Establishment Clause does apply to the states. There is no regardless

The only way that the establishment clause can be applied to the states
is when the 10th is completely ignored and unconstitutional,
politically correct meaning is forced into the 1st and 14th. Justice
Reed summed up the checks and balances between the 1st, 10th and 14th
in one sentence:
"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
The problem now is that corrupt secular Justices are using the 14th as
an excuse to unconstitutionally force the 1st's prohibitions on
Congress (federal government; aka United States) onto the States.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"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 entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing 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 from 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.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	23 Jan 2006 08:06:27 AM

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

:|And you continue to blissfully ignore that the 14th Amendment limits
:|what the Staes can do.

He continues to post because people continue to reply to him.
As long as people keep replying to him he will continue his trolling.
He has been in these particular threads since late last spring or early
summer
When he first showed up he quickly identified himself as a Alan Keyes
disciple, however Alan Keyes had baggage that was too well known and wasn't
helping him very much.
For whatever reason he poofed from these particular threads for a period of
time after Katrina (if he lives in one of those areas and lost power or for
some reason just left there particular threads I dun't know) At some point
a couple weeks or maybe a bit longer after Katrina he once more showed up
in these threads but his citing Alan Keyes had all but or had completely
vanished. He was still posting the same trolling keyes type propaganda
but just didn't mention or cite him much or at all anymore.
What he is pushing is the same thing that the Ultra conservatives, the
ultra libertarians, the theocrats are pushing, the same things that
William Brevard Hand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama pushed in
Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 554 F. Supp.
1104 (S.D. Ala. 1983)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jafdist.htm
and the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 12, 1983. shot down in the following
Jaffree v Wallace,Cite as 705 F.2d 1526 (1983)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/Jafdecsn.htm
and the USSC had this to say about it Judge Hand's rambling
JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
At an early stage of this litigation, the constitutionality of three
Alabama statutes was questioned: (1) 16-1-20, enacted in 1978, which
authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for
meditation"; 1 (2) 16-1-20.1, enacted in 1981, which authorized a period of
silence "for meditation or voluntary prayer"; 2 and (3) 16-1-20.2, enacted
in 1982, which authorized teachers to lead "willing students" in a
prescribed prayer to "Almighty God . . . the Creator and Supreme Judge of
the world." 3 [472 U.S. 38, 41]
At the preliminary-injunction stage of this case, the District Court
distinguished 16-1-20 from the other two statutes. It then held that there
was "nothing wrong" with 16-1-20, 4 but that 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2 were
both invalid because the sole purpose of both was "an effort on the part of
the State of Alabama to encourage a religious activity." 5 After the trial
on the merits, the District Court did not change its interpretation of
these two statutes, but held that they were constitutional because, in its
opinion, Alabama has the power to establish a state religion if it chooses
to do so. 6
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court's initial
interpretation of the purpose of both 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and held
them both unconstitutional. 7 We have already affirmed the Court of
Appeals' holding with respect to 16-1-20.2. 8 Moreover, appellees have not
questioned the holding that 16-1-20 is valid. 9 Thus, the narrow question
for decision is whether 16-1-20.1, which authorizes a period of silence for
"meditation or voluntary prayer," is a [472 U.S. 38, 42] law respecting
the establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. 10
I
Appellee Ishmael Jaffree is a resident of Mobile County, Alabama. On May
28, 1982, he filed a complaint on behalf of three of his minor children;
two of them were second-grade students and the third was then in
kindergarten. The complaint named members of the Mobile County School
Board, various school officials, and the minor plaintiffs' three teachers
as defendants. 11 The complaint alleged that the appellees brought the
action "seeking principally a declaratory judgment and an injunction
restraining the Defendants and each of them from maintaining or allowing
the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of
religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of
the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution." 12 The complaint further
alleged that two of the children had been subjected to various acts of
religious indoctrination "from the beginning of the school year in
September, 1981"; 13 that the defendant teachers had "on a daily basis" led
their classes in saying certain prayers in unison; 14 that the minor
children were exposed to ostracism from their peer group class members if
they did not participate; 15 and that Ishmael Jaffree had repeatedly but
unsuccessfully requested that the devotional services be stopped. The
original complaint made no reference to any Alabama statute. [472 U.S. 38,
43]
On June 4, 1982, appellees filed an amended complaint seeking class
certification, 16 and on June 30, 1982, they filed a second amended
complaint naming the Governor of Alabama and various state officials as
additional defendants. In that amendment the appellees challenged the
constitutionality of three Alabama statutes: 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1, and
16-1-20.2. 17
On August 2, 1982, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing on
appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction. At that hearing, State
Senator Donald G. Holmes testified that he was the "prime sponsor" of the
bill that was enacted in 1981 as 16-1-20.1. 18 He explained that the bill
was an "effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools . . . it is
a beginning and a step in the right direction." 19 Apart from the purpose
to return voluntary prayer to public school, Senator Holmes unequivocally
testified that he had "no other purpose in mind." 20 A week after the
hearing, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction. 21 The court
held that appellees were likely to prevail on the merits because the
enactment of 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2 did not reflect a clearly secular
purpose. 22 [472 U.S. 38, 44]
In November 1982, the District Court held a 4-day trial on the merits. The
evidence related primarily to the 1981-1982 academic year - the year after
the enactment of 16-1-20.1 and prior to the enactment of 16-1-20.2. The
District Court found that during that academic year each of the minor
plaintiffs' teachers had led classes in prayer activities, even after being
informed of appellees' objections to these activities. 23
In its lengthy conclusions of law, the District Court reviewed a number of
opinions of this Court interpreting the [472 U.S. 38, 45] Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, and then embarked on a fresh examination of
the question whether the First Amendment imposes any barrier to the
establishment of an official religion by the State of Alabama. After
reviewing at length what it perceived to be newly discovered historical
evidence, the District Court concluded that "the establishment clause of
the first amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit the
state from establishing a religion." 24 In a separate opinion, the District
Court dismissed appellees' challenge to the three Alabama statutes because
of a failure to state any claim for which relief could be granted. The
court's dismissal of this challenge was also based on its conclusion that
the Establishment Clause did not bar the States from establishing a
religion. 25 [472 U.S. 38, 46]
The Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases; not surprisingly, it
reversed. The Court of Appeals noted that this Court had considered and had
rejected the historical arguments [472 U.S. 38, 47] that the District
Court found persuasive, and that the District Court had misapplied the
doctrine of stare decisis. 26 The Court of Appeals then held that the
teachers' religious activities violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment. 27 With respect to 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, the Court of
Appeals stated that "both statutes advance and encourage religious
activities." 28 The Court of Appeals then quoted with approval the District
Court's finding that 16-1-20.1, and 16-1-20.2, were efforts "`to encourage
a religious activity. Even though these statutes are permissive in form, it
is nevertheless state involvement respecting an establishment of
religion.'" 29 Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that both statutes were
"specifically the type which the Supreme Court addressed in Engel [v.
Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)]." 30 [472 U.S. 38, 48]
A suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied over the dissent of four
judges who expressed the opinion that the full court should reconsider the
panel decision insofar as it held 16-1-20.1 unconstitutional. 31 When this
Court noted probable jurisdiction, it limited argument to the question that
those four judges thought worthy of reconsideration. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals
was affirmed. Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 924 (1984).
II
Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning
16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District Court's
remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no obstacle to
Alabama's establishment of a state religion. Before analyzing the precise
issue that is presented to us, it is nevertheless appropriate to recall how
firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence is the proposition that
the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual
freedoms [472 U.S. 38, 49] protected by the First Amendment than does the
Congress of the United States.
As is plain from its text, the First Amendment was adopted to curtail the
power of Congress to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to
worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own
conscience. 32 Until the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the
Constitution, the First Amendment's restraints on the exercise of federal
power simply did not apply to the States. 33 But when the Constitution was
amended to prohibit any State from depriving any person of liberty without
due process of law, that Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations
on the States' power to legislate that the First Amendment had always
imposed on the Congress' power. This Court has confirmed and endorsed this
elementary proposition of law time and time again. 34 [472 U.S. 38, 50]
Writing for a unanimous Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303
(1940), Justice Roberts explained:
". . . We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the
appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in
contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of
liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the
First Amendment. 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. The
constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a
double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the
acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of
conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of
worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the
other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of
religion."
Cantwell, of course, is but one case in which the Court has identified the
individual's freedom of conscience as the central liberty that unifies the
various Clauses in the First Amendment. 35 Enlarging on this theme, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE recently wrote: [472 U.S. 38, 51]
"We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought
protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the
right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See
Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633 -634 (1943); id., at 645
(Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize
religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the
concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak
and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the
broader concept of `individual freedom of mind.' Id., at 637.
. . . . .
"The Court in Barnette, supra, was faced with a state statute which
required public school students to participate in daily public ceremonies
by honoring the flag both with words and traditional salute gestures. In
overruling its prior decision in Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S.
586 (1940), the Court held that `a ceremony so touching matters of opinion
and political attitude may [not] be imposed upon the individual by official
authority under powers committed to any political organization under our
Constitution.' 319 U.S., at 636 . Compelling the affirmative act of a flag
salute involved a more serious infringement upon personal liberties than
the passive act of carrying the state motto on a license plate, but the
difference is essentially one of degree. Here, as in Barnette, we are faced
with a state measure which forces an individual, as part of his daily life
- indeed constantly while his automobile is in public view - to be an [472
U.S. 38, 52] instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological
point of view he finds unacceptable. In doing so, the State `invades the
sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First
Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.' Id.,
at 642." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 -715 (1977).
Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are
complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of
mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the
counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by
the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed
the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require
equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the
adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. 36 But when the
underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the
[472 U.S. 38, 53] Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual
freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right
to select any religious faith or none at all. 37 This conclusion derives
support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom
of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy
of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, 38
[472 U.S. 38, 54] and from recognition of the fact that the political
interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among
Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass
intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain. 39 [472 U.S. 38, 55]
As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943):
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it
is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force
citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
The State of Alabama, no less than the Congress of the United States, must
respect that basic truth.
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Not to be outdone Justice Rehnquist wrote the dissentign opinion which the
ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians, theocrats, love. They parade it
around like it was the majority opinion, it wasn't and it is seriously
flawed
Rehnquist, Wallace v. Jaffree: a Rebuttal
Correcting the flawed history of Chief Justice W. Rehnquist
http://candst.tripod.com/rebuttal.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
However those ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians, theocrats have never
given up. One such person Alan Keyes has written a essay that is offered by
many of that ilk as Gospel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/bb49e9171f5609ee?hl=en&
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, al.education, alt.society.liberalism
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:27:35 -0400
Local: Fri, Sep 30 2005 6:27 am
Subject: Re: Fred: Jefferson was a Dishonest Crook and Troll
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

:|> > Pledge because the 10th Amendment gives the States the power to address
:|> > religious issues. See the following essay [ by the Radical Religious Right
:|> >Theocratic propagandistic Alan Keyes ] concerning the
:|> > constitutional delegation of religous powers
:|> >
:|> > http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
:|You completely ignored the 10th Amendment:
:|
:|"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people."
:|

"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time I found his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:

:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm

**********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat
Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
*******************************************************************
and it will become even more pronounced now since they have at least one
USSC Justice who has admitted publicly he is in their corner. What isn't
known is how many others might be as well but have private views the same
as he but have not yet stated as such yet in speech, writings or court
opinions
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	23 Jan 2006 11:14:52 AM

wrote:

"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:

:|And you continue to blissfully ignore that the 14th Amendment limits
:|what the Staes can do.

He continues to post because people continue to reply to him.
As long as people keep replying to him he will continue his trolling.

Consider that people, such as yourself, continue to reply to me because
they're wrestling with their consciouses for perverting the
Constitution.

He has been in these particular threads since late last spring or early
summer

When he first showed up he quickly identified himself as a Alan Keyes
disciple, however Alan Keyes had baggage that was too well known and wasn't
helping him very much.

For whatever reason he poofed from these particular threads for a period of

<snipped for brevity>
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	28 Jan 2006 10:56:19 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|And you continue to blissfully ignore that the 14th Amendment limits
:|> >:|what the Staes can do.
:|>
:|>
:|> He continues to post because people continue to reply to him.
:|> As long as people keep replying to him he will continue his trolling.
:|
:|Consider that people, such as yourself, continue to reply to me because
:|they're wrestling with their consciouses for perverting the
:|Constitution.
:|

Consider that I rarely reply to you but when i do it is out of boredom as
much as anything else, and it is to get something I especially want "in the
record" ie Google to pick up and circulate.
It has little if anything to do with you personally.
You are some minor entertainment value.
As to why others reply to you I can only say some people have a high sense
of ethics that they find liars like you offensive and they post to counter
your lies.
I don't bother doing that much anymore because I realized a long time ago
you are your own worse enemy.
You flood the newsgroups with pretty much the same post/reply, with only
minor changes to it. The result is, the bilk of the people tuned you out a
long time ago.
Therefore, by and large i don't have to keep replying to you
FOR
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in
judiciary matters, are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor
opposition from any other branch of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 (Richard Morley)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1070.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	23 Jan 2006 05:54:26 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

:|Your "any attempt" is merely a politically correct, anti-religious
:|expression perspective of the equal protection clause of the 14th. As
:|I have repeatedly pointed out, Justice Reed wrote in a single sentence
:|how the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments are
:|supposed to work together:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/32edabe04dbdbff7?as_umsgid=0mnfuto4387utl0j0aupff3vifdjr6oaeh@4ax.com
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J10E2338C
Newsgroups: wi.general, alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism
From:

- Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 13:00:19 GMT
Local: Tues, Nov 6 2001 8:00 am
Subject: Re: "God Bless America" = a hurtful, divisive message
"Dana" <a...@def.com> wrote:

:|If that was the case the entire Constitution would have been applied to the
:|states, when in fact it has not been. If as you say the Constitution has been
:|Amended to apply to the states, the 10th Amendment would be worthless. But we
:|all know the leftists are very selective in what portions of the Constitution
:|they apply towards the states.

Selective incorporation was not a alien principe in 1789. Guess who the
very first person to suggest "selective incorporation" was.
None other than James Madison.
Guess who agreed with him?
Over 2/3rds of the House Of Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRONICALLY THE FIRST FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
JUNE 8, 1789--FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments-religious reference)
[House of Representatives]
(James Madison speaking)
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 5 between clauses 3 and 4,
be inserted these clauses, to wit:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any
pretext, infringed.
and
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security
of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
shall be compelled to render military service in person.
and
Fifthly, That in article Ist, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2,
be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the
freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
(end of religious reference)
-------------------------------------------
AUGUST 17, 1789-- FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments-religious reference)
[House of Representatives]
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph,
insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the
freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in
criminal cases.'
Mr. TUCKER this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the
constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of
constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend,
to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with
them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too
much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
Mr. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the
whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the
United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally
necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He
thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide
against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful
to the people.
Mr. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he
thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative
proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of
the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be
infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and Mr. TUCKER'S motion being
rejected, the clause was adopted.(6)
(In the final wording of the amendments that was sent to the Senate the
transposition had not taken place. No reason for that mistake is
recorded.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 24, 1789--FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments, references to
religion)
House Resolution and Articles of Amendment,
August 24, 1789
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATE
In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, 14th August, 1789,
RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, two thirds Of both Houses
deeming it necessary, That the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three
fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes
as part
of the said Constitution--Viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures
of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution.
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People
peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply co
the Government for a redress of grievances, shall nor be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the
best security of a free Scare, the right of the People to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person
ARTICLE THE FOURTEENTH.
No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor
the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Teste,
JOHN BECKLEY, CLERK
In Senate, August 25, 1789
Read and ordered to be printed for the
consideration of the Senate.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:: Creating the Bill of Rights, The Documentary Record
from the First Federal Congress, Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R.
Bowling, Charlene Bangs Bickford, The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore and London, 1991, pp 37-41
====================================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/browse_frm/thread/9e94e3f1f637d07e/d82756684bd37eb5?lnk=st&q=madison++selective+incorporation&rnum=2&hl=en#d82756684bd37eb5
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2FD5238C
89. buckeye-ELO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, alt.society.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.education, alt.education
From:

-
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:48:20 -0400
Local: Tues, Aug 26 2003 7:48 am
Subject: Re: Justices Order Religious Propaganda Removed
David Lentz <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote:

:|If you can not defend the Court's doctrine of selective
:|incorporation just call it a red herring. Feel free to cite the
:|provision of the Fourteenth Amendment which empowers the Supreme
:|Court to selectively decide which of your rights are worth
:|protecting and which are not/
:|

I see you backed off when I asked for evidence, yet he asks others for
evidence.
How quaint.
Here, explain this one.
Excerpt from Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/14thamend.htm
Ironically the First Fourteenth Amendment
On June 8, 1789 James Madison delivered his long awaited list of proposed
amendments to the House of Representatives. After several debates scattered
throughout the summer the following is a partial list of the amendments
that was passed by the House of Representative and sent on to the Senate.
Note especially Article the Fourteenth. That article, passed by the
necessary number of votes called for selective incorporation against the
state some of the other Articles. This particular article was defeated in
the Senate after secret debate and a secret vote. It must be remember at
this particular point in time in American History, the House of
Representative represented "the people." It's members were elected directly
by the people. The Senate, on the other hand, represented the states. It's
members were selected by the state legislatures.
[ It is also important to remember that at that time the House of
Representatives had in the area of 60+ members while the Senate at that
time only had 22 members. (Only 11 states were Represented in the First
Federal Congress during its first session, North Carolina and Rhode Island
had not at that time ratificed the Constitution, thuse they had no members
in Congress until the secons session after they had ratificed the
Constitution) Thus the required 2/3rds of the house voted in favor of
selective incorporation against the stated while the much smaller Senate,
its members who were in a minirity of the total Congress voted aganst in
secret vote. ]
It is ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "Bill of
Rights package" against the states. It is interesting that it was passed by
"the people's" representatives, but defeated by the state's
representatives. It is very ironic that another Article also numbered
fourteen was passed some 79 or so years later and that it would, in time be
used to selectively incorporate other Articles of the "Bill of Rights
package" against the states.
=========================================================
At the time Madison introduced the 14th Article of 1789, there isn't a
shred of evidence that anyone felt the concept of selective incorporation
was illegal or improper.
That speaks far more volumes than any of the crap you are saying now.
#####################################################
Food for thought:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Understand the Tenth Amendment, it is important to know that the
constitution delegates, or gives, certain powers to the federal government.
Most of these powers are actually enumerated, or named. . .
The federal government has other powers besides those clearly
listed in the Constitution. These are implied, or unstated, powers.
They cover a variety of matters. The Constitutions states that Congress
shall "make all Laws which shall be necessary proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United states." This "'necessary and
proper"clause (or elastic clause) gives the federal government the legal
right to exercise the implied power that is connected to its clearly listed
powers. For example, the federal government has the enumerated power to
make laws concerning trade between states. That power has been stretched
to include things not specifically listed in the Constitution such as
regulating air, bus, train, and truck transportation between states. The
federal government also regulates TV and radio. The issue of implied
powers was first raised by Chief Justice John Marshall
The Constitution also gives part of the federal government
Congress-the power "to provide for the ... general welfare of the United
States." Under this power, the federal government has done many things not
listed in the Constitution. For example, the federal government has built
dams and flood control projects. It has set up national parks. It has
established a billion dollar system of social security benefits for older
citizens and for the disabled and poor.
The federal government also shares certain powers with the states.
These concurrent, or shared, powers include setting and collecting taxes,
passing criminal laws on the same matter, and spending money for-the good
of the public.
The Constitution also names particular things that the states may
not do. For instance, states may not enter into treaties with countries.
Nor may states make laws that interfere with contracts or give people
titles of nobility (such as "count" or "duchess"). States are also
prohibited from coining money.
The states have thousands of powers. Every state creates and
controls its own government and sets voting requirements for its citizens.
The state controls local business, labor, and professions, as well as the
ownership, use, and sale of property. The state has tremendous
responsibility for looking after its citizens' health and welfare. It has
the power to set and collect taxes for these purposes. Looking out for its
citizens means controlling schools, hospitals, roads, and other public
services. It means making laws that require vaccinations and limiting
automobile exhaust fumes. It means outlawing forms of gambling and
forbidding ownership of dangerous weapons. It means establishing highway
speed limits and controlling the sale and use of alcoholic beverages. It
can also mean forbidding the sale of soft drinks if they are in bottles or
cans that aren't accepted for return.
From the beginning, the states kept some of these important powers
for themselves. After all, the Tenth Amendment says that all powers not
given to the federal government or forbidden to the states are reserved
to-that is, belong to-either the states or the people.
The Preamble, or first part, of the Constitution begins with the phrase,
"We the People. . ." and ends with". . . do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.," All the powers that the
Constitution of the United States gives, both to the states and to the
federal government, flow directly from the people.
Now think about what the Tenth Amendment is really saying:
All powers that are not given to the federal government or forbidden to the
states belong-- either to the states or to the people. The Tenth Amendment
really seems to be setting limits on the power of the federal government.
Yet this is exactly what the main part of the Constitution itself does. In
fact, many scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment only repeats what is
said in the Constitution. If this is true, then why has the Tenth
Amendment been interpreted--its meaning studied and debated--over and over
again?
To answer this question, compare the wording of the Tenth Amendment
with these travel directions: , 'Drive 14.2 miles. Turn left just before
the bridge. Continue for two blocks. Stop at the bank on your right." How
detailed is the amendment compared with the travel directions? Does the
amendment give an exact road map for the constitutional traveler? The
answer is clearly no.
Some scholars believe that those who wrote the Tenth Amendment
purposely made it vague, or fuzzy. Why would they want to do that?
Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 17 8 1) will help
to explain this. Article 11, like the Tenth Amendment that came after it,
deals with the power of state governments and the federal government. But
Article 11 includes a key word that is not found in the Tenth Amendment.
Pay special attention -to the underlined [capitalized] word as you read the
Article:
Each State retains its sovereignty [power not controlled by any other
power], freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right,
which is not by this confederation EXPRESSLY delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled. [underlining-capitalized- added]
The word expressly means " directly " or " specifically. " A sign in a
restaurant that sets aside one area expressly for nonsmokers means "Keep
out of this area if you wish to smoke!" A Congress that has only those
powers expressly delegated to itself is also limited. It may do only those
things that the Constitution actually names as its fight. It may not do
anything more. The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was
called a body without a head. It was the word expressly that had chopped
the head off that national body.
Those who were present at the 1787 Constitutional Convention knew
how Article II of the Articles of Confederation had weakened the federal
government earlier. Delegates who attended the state conventions to ratify
the Constitution probably knew it, too. The word expressly didn't bother
the Anti-Federalists. In fact, they pressed hard to have the word
expressly included in any amendment about the "reserved powers" of the
states.
After the Constitutional Convention had approved the Constitution,
the states held their own conventions to make decisions about ratifying it.
The Federalists had tried hard to persuade state delegates to vote for the
Constitution. They convinced the delegates that amendments should be
decided on separately from the Constitution itself. The states therefore
came up with various ideas for amendments. Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, South Carolina, and Virginia all wrote amendments that reserved
to the states those powers not delegated to the central government. Except
for Virginia, all of these states wanted the new amendment to keep for the
states all powers ,"expressly " or "clearly," delegated to the federal
government.
On June 8, 1789, James Madison introduced the various state
amendments to Congress. His wording for the "reserved powers" amendment
stated: "The powers not delegated to this constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively." When the Senate
approved the amendment on September 7, 1789, it included the words "or to
the people." Both the Senate and the House of Representatives accepted the
amendment as the twelfth and last one. Then, after two other amendments
were rejected, the "reserved powers" amendment moved up two places and
became the tenth amendment in the list. After Congress voted to propose
the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, it was up to the states to
ratify these amendments. In 1791 the Tenth Amendment and the other nine
amendments were finally ratified.
Remember, the Tenth Amendment did not include the word expressly.
What effect would this have on the way in which the amendment was received?
As you may have guessed, it left the door wide open for different
interpretations of federal powers.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights,
The Tenth Amendment, Judith Adams, Silver Burdett Press. (1991) pp 31-36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertainty, in fact, was the dominant mood at that moment. Historians have
emphasized the several compromises the delegates in Philadelphia brokered
to produce the constitutional consensus: the interest of large versus small
states; federal versus state jurisdiction; the sectional bargain over
slavery. The most revealing feature in this compromise motif is that on
each issue, both sides could plausibly believe they had gotten the best of
the bargain. On the all-important question of sovereignty, the same
artfully contrived ambiguity also obtained: Sovereignty did not reside with
the federal government or the individual states; it resided with "the
people." What that meant was any one's guess, since there was no such thing
at this formative stage as an American "people"; indeed, the primary
purpose of the Constitution was to provide the framework to gather together
the scattered strands of the population into a more coherent collective
worthy of that designation.
This latter point requires a reflective review of recent scholarship on the
complicated origins of American nationhood. Based on what we now know about
the Anglo-American connection in the preRevolution era-that is, before it
was severed-the initial identification of the colonial population as
"Americans" came from English writers who used the term negatively, as a
way of referring to a marginal or peripheral population unworthy of equal
status with full-blooded Englishmen back at the metropolitan center of the
British Empire. The word was uttered and heard as an insult that designated
an inferior or subordinate people. The entire thrust of the colonists'
justification for independence was to reject that designation on the
grounds that they possessed all the rights of British citizens. And the
ultimate source of these rights did not lie in any indigenously American
origins, but rather in a transcendent realm of natural rights allegedly
shared by all men everywhere. At least at the level of language, then, we
need to recover the eighteenth-century context of things and not read back
into those years the hallowed meanings they would acquire over the next
century. The term American, like the term democrat, began as an epithet,
the former referring to an inferior, provincial creature, the latter to one
who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses. At both the
social and verbal levels, in short, an American nation remained a
precarious and highly problematic project-at best a work in progress.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Founding Brothers, The Revolutionary
Generation, Joseph J. Ellis. Knopf, N.Y. (2000) pp 9-10)
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	22 Jan 2006 12:59:57 PM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

:|cpt banjo wrote:
:|> fred wrote:
:|>
:|> > People don't understand that the States have the power to legislate
:|> > religion. If people knew what was going on the people could put a stop
:|> > to corrupt interpretations of the Constitution.
:|>
:|>
:|> Regardless of whether the Establishment Clause applied to the States,
:|> any attempt by a State to legislate religion would violate the Equal
:|> Protection Clause. So you lose either way, Freddie.
:|
:|Your "any attempt" is merely a politically correct, anti-religious
:|expression perspective of the equal protection clause of the 14th. As
:|I have repeatedly pointed out, Justice Reed wrote in a single sentence
:|how the checks and balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments are
:|supposed to work together:
:|
:|"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

JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584 (1942)
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:28sBv3dDeiAJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3DUS%26vol%3D316%26invol%3D584+%22Conflicts+in+the+exercise+of+rights+arise+and+the+conflicting+forces&hl=en
Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=us&CiRestriction=316+u.s.+584&
1. FindLaw: CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE v. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520
(1993)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/520.html
Highlight Hits
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/usscft.pl?CiWebhitsFile=/us/508/520.html&CiRestriction=%22316%20U.S.%20584%22
You serached for 316 U.S. 584"
... it for disregarding the government's constitutional obligation "to
accommodate itself to the religious views of minorities," Jones v. Opelika,
316 U.S. 584, 624 (1942) (opinion of Black, Douglas, and Murphy, JJ.), was
explicitly overruled in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624,
642 ...
*****************************************************************
Therefore Alan Keyes clone, propagandistic trolling fred, your quote is
meaningless since the case it appearted in was overturned by the very same
USSC
Better luck next time troll
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	28 Jan 2006 10:56:28 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
For Fred
FOR
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in
judiciary matters, are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor
opposition from any other branch of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 (Richard Morley)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1070.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	01 Feb 2006 04:57:21 AM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

FOR
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in
judiciary matters, are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor
opposition from any other branch of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 (Richard Morley)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1070.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "wjyoung"
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	02 Feb 2006 10:02:53 PM

wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

wrote:

"in judiciary matters" Jefferson stated the obvious: The powers are
separate, the branches independent.
Here's another from Jefferson.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kydraft.html

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;
and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the
freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves
the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on
the general demand of it�s citizens, had already protected them, from
all human restraint or interference: And that in addition to this
general principle & express declaration, another & more special
provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution
which expressly declares that �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,� thereby
guarding in the same sentence & under the same words the freedom of
religion, of speech & of the press. insomuch that whatever violates
either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that[5]
libels, falsehood and defamation equally with heresy & false
religion are witheld from the cognisance of federal tribunals; that
therefore the act of the Congress of the US. passed on the 14th. day
of July 1798. intituled �an act in addition to the act intituled an
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the US.� which does
abridge the freedom of the press is not law but is altogether void
and of no force.

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyednote.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0509g.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1067181/posts
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=68
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: 1st, 10th,14th Amendments	01 Feb 2006 06:10:35 PM

wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

ol nor

:|> opposition from any other branch of the government." --Thomas Jeffer=

son to

:|> Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 (Richard Morley)
:|> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1070.htm
:|

I appreciate what Mr. Jefferson wrote about the Courts. However,
Article 5 of the Constitution clearly shows that the legal majority
people, through their representatives, and not the USSC, have the final
say in what the Constitution says.
Also, note that both Jefferson and Lincoln warned us about corrupt
judges:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas) 1858

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me