Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames

Religions > Atheism > Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	05 Nov 2005 07:38:23 PM
Object:	Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames

PART I
The following four part post takes the crux of fred's Jefferson, Reynolds,
Everson propaganda and shoots it down in flames
He will never admit it, yet it does just the same
Any and all can use in whole or in part any of this to continue to trash
the fred trolling propaganda as they see fit
As long as anyone is willing to humor him by replying to him, he will be
around
The following info is well researched, valid and demolishes his propaganda
on this particular topic of his
Jefferson, his letter to Daubury Baptist, Reynolds, Lying corrupt courts,
Everson, and so on
*******************************************************************************************
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&page=1#f2
U.S. Supreme Court
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP. et al. No. 52.
Argued Nov. 20, 1946.
Decided Feb. 10, 1947.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1947
See 330 U.S. 855 , 67 S.Ct. 962.
Appeal from the Court of Errors and Appeals of the State of New jersey.
[330 U.S. 1, 2] Messrs. Edward R. Burke and E. Hilton Jackson, both of
Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. William H. Speer, of Jersey City, for appellees.
[330 U.S. 1, 3]
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
A New Jersey statute authorizes its local school districts to make rules
and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 1 ] 'Whenever in any district there are children living remote
from any schoolhouse, the board of education of the district may make rules
and contracts for the transportation of such children to and from school,
including the transportation of school children to and from school other
than a public school, except such school as is operated for profit in whole
or in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
'When any school district provides any transportation for public
school children to and from school, transportation from any point in such
established school route to any other point in such established school
route shall be supplied to school children residing in such school district
in going to and from school other than a public school, except such school
as is operated for profit in whole or in part.' New Jersey Laws 1941, c.
191, p. 581, N.J.Rev.Stat. 18:14-8, N.J.S.A.
The appellee, a township board of education, acting pursuant to this
statute authorized reimbursement to parents of money expended by them for
the bus transportation of their children on regular busses operated by the
public transportation system. Part of this money was for the payment of
transportation of some children in the community to Catholic parochial
schools. These church schools give their students, in addition to secular
education, regular religious instruction conforming to the religious tenets
and modes of worship of the Catholic Faith. The superintendent of these
schools is a Catholic priest.
The appellant, in his capacity as a district taxpayer, filed suit in a
State court challenging the right of the Board to reimburse parents of
parochial school students. He [330 U.S. 1, 4] contended that the statute
and the resolution passed pursuant to it violated both the State and the
Federal Constitutions. That court held hat the legislature was without
power to authorize such payment under the State constitution. 132 N.J.L.
98, 39 A.2d 75. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals reversed,
holding that neither the statute nor the resolution passed pursuant to it
was in conflict with the State constitution or the provisions of the
Federal Constitution in issue. 133 N. J.L. 350, 44 A.2d 333. The case is
here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 344(a), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(a).
Since there has been no attack on the statute on the ground that a part of
its language excludes children attending private schools operated for
profit from enjoying state payment for their transportation, we need not
consider this exclusionary language; it has no relevancy to any
constitutional question here presented. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 2 ] Appellant does not challenge the New Jersey statute or the
resolution on the ground that either violates the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding payment for the transportation of
any pupil who attends a 'private school run for profit.' Although the
township resolution authorized reimbursement only for parents of public and
Catholic school pupils, appellant does not allege, nor is there anything in
the record which would offer the slightest support to an allegation, that
there were any children in the township who attended or would have
attended, but for want of transportation, any but public and Catholic
schools. It will be appropriate to consider the exclusion of students of
private schools operated for profit when and if it is proved to have
occurred, is made the basis of a suit by one in a position to challenge it,
and New Jersey's highest court has ruled adversely to the challenger.
Striking down a state law is not a matter of such light moment that it
should be done by a federal court ex mero motu on a postulate neither
charged nor proved, but which rests on nothing but a possibility. Cf.
Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Com'rs of Emigration,
113 U.S. 33, 39 , 5 S.Ct. 352, 355.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, if the exclusion clause had been properly challenged, we do
not know whether New Jersey's highest court would construe its statutes as
precluding payment of the school [330 U.S. 1, 5] transportation of any
group of pupils, even those of a private school run for profit. 3
Consequently, we put to one side the question as to the validity of the
statute against the claim that it does not authorize payment for the
transportation generally of school children in New Jersey.
The only contention here is that the State statute and the resolution, in
so far as they authorized reimbursement to parents of children attending
parochial schools, violate the Federal Constitution in these two respects,
which to some extent, overlap. First. They authorize the State to take by
taxation the private property of some and bestow it upon others, to be used
for their own private purposes. This, it is alleged violates the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second. The statute and the
resolution forced inhabitants to pay taxes to help support and maintain
schools which are dedicated to, and which regularly teach, the Catholic
Faith. This is alleged to be a use of State power to support church schools
contrary to the prohibition of the First Amendment which the Fourteenth
Amendment made applicable to the states.
First. The due process argument that the State law taxes some people to
help others carry out their private [330 U.S. 1, 6] purposes is framed in
two phases. The first phase is that a state cannot tax A to reimburse B for
the cost of transporting his children to church schools. This is said to
violate the due process clause because the children are sent to these
church schools to satisfy the personal desires of their parents, rather
than the public's interest in the general education of all children. This
argument, if valid, would apply equally to prohibit state payment for the
transportation of children to any non- public school, whether operated by a
church, or any other nongovernment individual or group. But, the New Jersey
legislature has decided that a public purpose will be served by using
tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of all school children, including
those who attend parochial schools. The New Jersey Court of Errors and
Appeals has reached the same conclusion. The fact that a state law, passed
to satisfy a public need, coincides with the personal desires of the
individuals most directly affected is certainly an inadequate reason for us
to say that a legislature has erroneously appraised the public need.
It is true that this Court has, in rare instances, struck down state
statutes on the ground that the purpose for which tax-raised funds were to
be expended was not a public one. Citizens' Savings & Loan Association v.
City of Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; City of Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 ,
1 S.Ct. 442; Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 300 U.S. 55 , 57
S.Ct. 364. But the Court has also pointed out that this far-reaching
authority must be exercised with the most extreme caution. Green v.
Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 240 , 40 S. Ct. 499, 501. Otherwise, a state's power
to legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed, a power
which is a primary reason for the existence of states. Changing local
conditions create new local problems which may lead a state's people and
its local authorities to believe that laws authorizing new types of public
services are necessary to promote the general well-being [330 U.S. 1, 7]
of the people. The Fourteenth Amendment did not strip the states of their
power to meet problems previously left for individual solution. Davidson v.
New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 103 , 104 S.; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31
, 32 S., 5 S.Ct. 357, 360; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164
U.S. 112, 157 , 158 S., 17 S.Ct. 56, 62, 63.
It is much too late to argue that legislation intended to facilitate the
opportunity of children to get a secular education serves no public
purpose. Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 281 U.S. 370 , 50
S. Ct. 335; Holmes, J., in Interstate Consolidated Street Ry. Co. v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79, 87 , 28 S.Ct. 26, 27, 12
Ann.Cas. 555. See opinion of Cooley, J., in Stuart v. School District No. 1
of Village of Kalamazoo, 1878, 30 Mich. 69. The same thing is no less true
of legislation to reimburse needy parents, or all parents, for payment of
the fares of their children so that they can ride in public busses to and
from schools rather than run the risk of traffic and other hazards incident
to walking or 'hitchhiking.' See Barbier v. Connolly, supra, 113 U.S. at
page 31, 5 S.Ct. at page 359. See also cases collected 63 A.L.R. 413; 118
A.L.R. 806. Nor does it follow that a law has a private rather than a
public purpose because it provides that tax-raised funds will be paid to
reimburse i dividuals on account of money spent by them in a way which
furthers a public program. See Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301
U.S. 495, 518 , 57 S.Ct. 868, 876, 109 A.L.R. 1327. Subsidies and loans to
individuals such as farmers and home owners, and to privately owned
transportation systems, as well as many other kinds of businesses, have
been commonplace practices in our state and national history.
Insofar as the second phase of the due process argument may differ from the
first, it is by suggesting that taxation for transportation of children to
church schools constitutes support of a religion by the State. But if the
law is invalid for this reason, it is because it violates the First
Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion [330 U.S. 1,
8] by law. This is the exact question raised by appellant's second
contention, to consideration of which we now turn.
Second. The New Jersey statute is challenged as a 'law respecting an
establishment of religion.' The First Amendment, as made applicable to the
states by the Fourteenth, Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S.
105 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, 146 A.L.R. 81,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' These words of the
First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental
picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp
out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity.
Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the
Nation moved toward it that the expression 'law respecting an establishment
of religion,' probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of
the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be
written into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey law is one
respecting the 'establishment of religion' requires an understanding of the
meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of
taxes. Once again, 4
------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 4 ] See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 162;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145
cf. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 89 , 106 S., 20 S.Ct. 747, 766, 772.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=178&invol=41#89
----------------------------------------------------------
therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and
environment of the period in which that constitutional language was
fashioned and adopted.
A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from
Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and
attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and
contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with
turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by
established sects determined to [330 U.S. 1, 9] maintain their absolute
political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting
them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants,
Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other
Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics
of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time
persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group
happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular
time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly
tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had
been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of
ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those
churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to pay
taxes and tithes to support them. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Footnote 5 ] See e.g. Macaulay, History of England (1849) I, cc. 2, 4;
The Cambridge Modern History (1908) V, cc. V, IX, XI; Beard, Rise of
American Civilization (1937) I, 60; Cobb, Religious Liberty in America
(1902) c. II; Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (1939) c. II; Sweet,
Religion in Colonial America (194 ) 320-322.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
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: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 01:21:03 AM

alt.education removed.
Buckeye_ELO is evidently nervous as evidenced by his multiple, verbose
posts. (Proverbs 10:19) This is because his four part "proof" not only
fails to mention the 10th Amendment, but also the blunderous gaffes in
the Cantwell and Opelika opinions concerning the 10th Amendment. As
I've repeatedly mentioned elsewhere, the Cantwell opinion indicates
that activist judges have actually misled the People. This is because
activist judges have wrongly allowed Americans to think that the
Founding Fathers had ultimately decided on absolute church-state
separation. This is evidenced whenever activist Justices reference
Jefferson's Danbury letter which contains Jefferson's famous "wall of
separation" words. Activist judges now justify the scandalous, outcome
driven interpretation of the "new and improved" - but unconstitutional
- establishment clause in the Everson opinion as the genuine intentions
of the Founding Fathers. But hiding behind the coat tails of Jefferson
and the Founding Fathers has been a big mistake.
It has been a mistake because the Opelika opinion, which came after the
Cantwell opinion, shows that the 10th Amendment, the Amendment that the
Cantwell opinion "inadvertently overlooked" - oops, is still alive and
kicking regardless that activist Justices continue to try to hide it
from the People.
More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson, the Cantwell opinion gaffe
reflects that the States have had the power to legislate religion from
the time that the federal BOR was ratified (via the 10th 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." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
So what happened to the 10th Amendment?
Fortunately, an honest Justice, who evidently wasn't willing to play
the absolute church-state separation game, mentioned the 10th Amendment
and its guarantee of sovereign powers of the States in the Opelika
opinion:
"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,11 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." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
It is important to note that the above extract mentions the 10th
Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States in context with our
1st Amendment freedoms.
The above Opelika extract also indicates what I've been saying all
along about the 14th Amendment. Instead of unlawfully amending the
Constitution with the Cantwell opinion to steal the power of the State
governments to legislate religion, Justices are actually expected to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protections of personal federal rights.
This is why I've been repeatedly saying that the States have the
constitutional power (10th Amendment protected powers) to authorize
public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th Amendment personal federal
protections) classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism, irreducible complexity, intelligent design,
etc..
As a sideline, note again that buckeye_ELO evidently got nervous about
the 10th Amendment and telltale Court opinions as evidenced by his four
part, boring proof against fred's points about the 10th Amendment and
Cantwell and Opelika opinions. With that in mind, also consider that
the outcome-driven Justices who wrote the Everson opinion had likewise
unwittingly tried to camouflage their crapola about their bogus
interpretation of the establishment clause with verbose wording.
More specifically, nervous Justices unwittingly gave credibility to
BOTH the Jefferson and the 14th Amendment stories in the Everson
opinion, regardless of the different timelines of these stories.
Again, the Everson opinion gives credibility not only to the bogus
assertion that the Founding Fathers had intented for absolute
church-state separation, but also to the Cantwell garbage that the 14th
Amendment later trumped the 10th Amendment's sovereign powers
protection of the States with an implied but unlawful repeal of the
10th Amendment by a mere Court opinion. (The Cantwell opinion may be
the best known example of judges unlawfully legislating from the
bench.)
buckeye_ELO@nospam.net wrote:

< ********************************************
<snipped for brevity>
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 03:13:20 AM

In <1131240063.263685.237490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

This is because activist
judges have wrongly allowed Americans to think that the Founding Fathers
had ultimately decided on absolute church-state separation.

You mean the separation Madison--author of the first amendment--called a
"perfect separation?" That separation? The one he described as causing the
government to not even be "cognizant" of religion except as necessary to
keep the peace? You know, "cognizant" as in the government was--in
Madison's opinion--to not even be *aware of the *existence of religion
unless religious groups disrupted the peace. Is that the separation of
which you speak?
By Madison's standards, we haven't yet achieved his ideal, "perfect
separation" but we've been getting closer. Maybe someday we'll live up to
the expectations of the author of the First and our government will
actually not even be aware of the existence of religions except as
necessary to keep the peace.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 06:46:40 AM

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible
you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process
The constitution was ratified
AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding
The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.
It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.
.

User: "Harry Hope"
Title: LIBERALS MAKE POOP IN THEIR PANTS ==> Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 01:21:53 PM

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700,

wrote:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 06:00:18 PM

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

Not exactly true. All of the government is to be bound by the
Constitution and limit their role to what they are constitutionally
allowed to do. Only if there is a disagreement about what the role of
government is do we go to the Court to ask for their decision.
.

User: "wjyoung"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 08:03:31 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 09:28:39 PM

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:03:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote in
<11msockner701ad@corp.supernews.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?

There could have been, but the original case was accepted with no
particular comment for many years. Only when President Jackson didn't
care what the Court said and ignored their Trail of Tears decision did
we come to the point of a constitutional crisis, and the Court didn't do
anything about it. The reason to have the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter is that it has no physical power. It has to persuade, not force.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 09:50:48 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:03:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote in
<11msockner701ad@corp.supernews.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?

You are ignoring that the decision in Marbury v. Madison essentially
defended the written Constitution over Justices who decide things at
pleasure. This sentiment is also reflected in Jefferson's words:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
The bottom line is the when the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional
decision, it's time for the People to start warming up the tar and
feathers.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 09:55:19 PM

On 6 Nov 2005 13:50:48 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131313848.255809.75290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:03:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote in
<11msockner701ad@corp.supernews.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?

You are ignoring that the decision in Marbury v. Madison essentially
defended the written Constitution over Justices who decide things at
pleasure.

Since you have not provided examples of Justices who decide things at
pleasure, there's really nothing to discuss then. You appear to have
agreed that Marbury is correct and that it is appropriate for the Court
to rule on the actions of the rest of the government, whether federal
or, through the 14th amendment, state.

This sentiment is also reflected in Jefferson's words:

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

The bottom line is the when the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional
decision, it's time for the People to start warming up the tar and
feathers.

Fine. Let me know if they ever do.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 10:54:20 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 13:50:48 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131313848.255809.75290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:03:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote in
<11msockner701ad@corp.supernews.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?

You are ignoring that the decision in Marbury v. Madison essentially
defended the written Constitution over Justices who decide things at
pleasure.

To the contrary about corrupt Justices, I've been repeatedly referring
to the folly of the Everson interpretation of the establishment clause
which you have seemingly chosen to ignore. As I've mentioned many
times before, the outcome-driven Everson Justices were evidently
worried that people might call their bluff about their "new and
improved" but unconstitutional interpretation of the establishment
clause. They were worried as evidenced by the fact they unthinkingly
referenced two Court precedents whose stories do not agree to defend
their bluff.
The Everson Justices defended their outcome-driven interpretation of
the establishment clause by claiming not only that the Founding Fathers
had ultimately decided on absolute church-state separation when the BOR
was ratified (Jefferson "wall of separation" in Everson and Reynolds)
but also that the 14th Amendment took this power of the States away in
Cantwell. The problem is, how can this power that the Court is now
claiming that the States never had in the first place have been away as
the Court had also claimed?
Again, the Everson interpretation of the establishment clause and their
justifications for this interpretation amounts to nothing more the
unconstitutional, cherry-picking folly of anti-religious expression
activist Justices.

Fine. Let me know if they ever do.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	06 Nov 2005 11:08:22 PM

On 6 Nov 2005 14:54:20 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131317660.378864.169000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 13:50:48 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131313848.255809.75290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:03:31 -0700, in alt.atheism
wjyoung <wjyoung@nospam.net> wrote in
<11msockner701ad@corp.supernews.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:46:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<5i9rm1lekoje5adat77plt652c7o2fn52o@4ax.com>:

On 5 Nov 2005 17:21:03 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

More specifically, as opposed to falsifying the intentions of the
Founding Fathers by misreprenting Jefferson,

That's not possible

you cannot "misrepresent" something that isn't relevant to the
Judicial process

The constitution was ratified

AFTER it was ratified, all else is "historical"---it is not legally
binding

The USSC is the ONLY entity to "interpret" what the constitution
means.

It cannot be "wrong" by virtue of it's mandate.

What if there is disagreement about the role of the Supreme Court?

You are ignoring that the decision in Marbury v. Madison essentially
defended the written Constitution over Justices who decide things at
pleasure.

To the contrary about corrupt Justices, I've been repeatedly referring
to the folly of the Everson interpretation of the establishment clause
which you have seemingly chosen to ignore.

Yes, yes, but you haven't done anything but misinterpret it and then
attack what you don't understand.

As I've mentioned many
times before, the outcome-driven Everson Justices were evidently
worried that people might call their bluff about their "new and
improved" but unconstitutional interpretation of the establishment
clause.

I'm not following what you are arguing here.

They were worried as evidenced by the fact they unthinkingly
referenced two Court precedents whose stories do not agree to defend
their bluff.

How do they disagree?

The Everson Justices defended their outcome-driven interpretation of
the establishment clause by claiming not only that the Founding Fathers
had ultimately decided on absolute church-state separation when the BOR
was ratified (Jefferson "wall of separation" in Everson and Reynolds)
but also that the 14th Amendment took this power of the States away in
Cantwell. The problem is, how can this power that the Court is now
claiming that the States never had in the first place have been away as
the Court had also claimed?

Where did the Court say the states never had it?

Again, the Everson interpretation of the establishment clause and their
justifications for this interpretation amounts to nothing more the
unconstitutional, cherry-picking folly of anti-religious expression
activist Justices.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't follow from the evidence.

Fine. Let me know if they ever do.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 12:11:42 AM

<ROTFL> Given your side-stepping responses to my posts, if you're not a
separationist mentality trial laywer then you missed your calling.
<snipped for brevity>

I'm not following what you are arguing here.

They were worried as evidenced by the fact they unthinkingly
referenced two Court precedents whose stories do not agree to defend
their bluff.

How do they disagree?

Where did the Court say the states never had it?

<rolling eyeballs up> Sigh. :^( Jensen doesn't really want to hear this
stuff anyway, so why am I even bothering to enlighten him *again* by
posting it for the nth time?
Activist Cantwell Justices had made a gaffe by indicating that the
Founding Fathers had decided to reserve the power to legislate religion
to the States as evidenced by the following extract from the Cantwell
opinion:
"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." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
But then other activist judges come along and, evidently being too
nervous to try to corroborate their twisted interpretation of the
establishment clause with previous Court opinions, unwittingly puppeted
the Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words. They
misreprented the intentions of the Founding Fathers by reasonably
suggesting, contrary to the Cantwell gaffe, that the Founding Fathers
had never meant for the States to have the power to legislate religion
in the first place; unconstitutional absolute church-state separation.

From 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.
"...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. ..." -- YEAH, RIGHT.
The question at this point is why are activist judges, along with the
liberal media, now misleading Americans to believe that the Founding
Fathers had actually decided on absolute church-state separation as
evidenced by the Everson folly since the Cantwell gaffe shows that the
Court recognized that States actually had this power until it was
unlawfully taken away by the Court's unconstitutional interpretation of
the 14th Amendment?

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't follow from the evidence.

The bottom line is that your unconstitutional, anti-religious
expresson, separationist agenda cannot afford for my argument to
follow.

Fine. Let me know if they ever do.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 12:36:31 AM

On 6 Nov 2005 16:11:42 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131322301.996691.101860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

<ROTFL> Given your side-stepping responses to my posts, if you're not a
separationist mentality trial laywer then you missed your calling.

<snipped for brevity>

I'm not following what you are arguing here.

They were worried as evidenced by the fact they unthinkingly
referenced two Court precedents whose stories do not agree to defend
their bluff.

How do they disagree?

Where did the Court say the states never had it?

<rolling eyeballs up> Sigh. :^( Jensen doesn't really want to hear this
stuff anyway, so why am I even bothering to enlighten him *again* by
posting it for the nth time?

I'm not asking you to repeat the things you have posted before. I've
already discussed it. Your problem is that you didn't understand the
cases or why your interpretation is wrong. Respond to the actual
comments I have made, do not repeat your incantation.

Activist Cantwell Justices had made a gaffe by indicating that the
Founding Fathers had decided to reserve the power to legislate religion
to the States as evidenced by the following extract from the Cantwell
opinion:

"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." -- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.

But then other activist judges come along and, evidently being too
nervous to try to corroborate their twisted interpretation of the
establishment clause with previous Court opinions, unwittingly puppeted
the Founding Fathers with Jefferson's "wall of separation" words. They
misreprented the intentions of the Founding Fathers by reasonably
suggesting, contrary to the Cantwell gaffe, that the Founding Fathers
had never meant for the States to have the power to legislate religion
in the first place; unconstitutional absolute church-state separation.

From 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.

"...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. ..." -- YEAH, RIGHT.

The question at this point is why are activist judges, along with the
liberal media, now misleading Americans to believe that the Founding
Fathers had actually decided on absolute church-state separation as
evidenced by the Everson folly since the Cantwell gaffe shows that the
Court recognized that States actually had this power until it was
unlawfully taken away by the Court's unconstitutional interpretation of
the 14th Amendment?

Because they are not. You don't understand the problem so you don't
understand why your claims are wrong.

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't follow from the evidence.

The bottom line is that your unconstitutional, anti-religious
expresson, separationist agenda cannot afford for my argument to
follow.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Let's see, Cantwell - Supreme Court protects the religious rights of the
Jehovah's Witnesses against undue state action; Opelika (1943) - Supreme
Court protects the religious rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses against
undue state action (overturning the 1942 ruling); Everson - Supreme
Court allows public funding of transportation to parochial schools.
I support their approach. Please tell me how this is anti-religious.
....
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 03:49:14 AM

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 16:11:42 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131322301.996691.101860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

<ROTFL> Given your side-stepping responses to my posts, if you're not a
separationist mentality trial laywer then you missed your calling.

<snipped for brevity>

I'm not following what you are arguing here.

They were worried as evidenced by the fact they unthinkingly
referenced two Court precedents whose stories do not agree to defend
their bluff.

How do they disagree?

Where did the Court say the states never had it?

<rolling eyeballs up> Sigh. :^( Jensen doesn't really want to hear this
stuff anyway, so why am I even bothering to enlighten him *again* by
posting it for the nth time?

Ah, you're either Bob LeChevalier or his twin brother; a master of
creating the illusion of having made a point and rewriting history.

From 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.

"...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. ..." -- YEAH, RIGHT.

The question at this point is why are activist judges, along with the
liberal media, now misleading Americans to believe that the Founding
Fathers had actually decided on absolute church-state separation as
evidenced by the Everson folly since the Cantwell gaffe shows that the
Court recognized that States actually had this power until it was
unlawfully taken away by the Court's unconstitutional interpretation of
the 14th Amendment?

Because they are not. You don't understand the problem so you don't
understand why your claims are wrong.

<ROTFL> Again, you're either Bob LeChevalier or his twin brother;
separated at birth, perhaps? I'm either right, because you say I'm
right. Or I'm wrong, because you say I'm wrong. What a system!

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't follow from the evidence.

The bottom line is that your unconstitutional, anti-religious
expresson, separationist agenda cannot afford for my argument to
follow.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

Let's see, Cantwell - Supreme Court protects the religious rights of the
Jehovah's Witnesses against undue state action; Opelika (1943) - Supreme
Court protects the religious rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses against
undue state action (overturning the 1942 ruling); Everson - Supreme
Court allows public funding of transportation to parochial schools.

I support their approach. Please tell me how this is anti-religious.

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

...

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 04:06:56 AM

On 6 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131335354.804116.157590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

.....

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

I did respond quite clearly to this series. The Court has made it clear
that the First Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment.

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

No, you are not answering the question. How do the cases that support
the First Amendment violate the Constitution?
Opelika (1942) is not controlling law. I don't see why you keep going to
it, particularly since you don't seem to understand what was said there.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 06:52:45 AM

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131335354.804116.157590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

....

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

I did respond quite clearly to this series. The Court has made it clear
that the First Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment.

Given the cherry-picking folly of the Everson opinion, I can argue that
you're statement sidesteps the Everson Justice's "insight" concerning
the establishment clause because the Founding Fathers never gave the
States such powers anyway. This would mean that section 1 of the 14th
Amendmend is irrelevant to the 1st Amendment because the establishment
clause already prohibited State powers just like it prohibited
Congress's powers:
"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.

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

No, you are not answering the question. How do the cases that support
the First Amendment violate the Constitution?

How oblivious and stubborn can you get? Can't you see that your
separationist tunnel-vision is blinding you to the religious expression
"civil war" that is certainly must be going on within the walls of the
Supreme Court? Regardless of the outcome of the case that you are
crying about, or the outcome of any case for that matter, the Everson
opinion is evidence that activist Justices cherry-pick whichever parts
of previous opinions (and historical documents) that they need,
regardless of the actual outcome of a previous case. They do so
presumably in order to make their outcome-driven opinions for a current
case look as constitutionally sound as possible.
Fortunately for our guaranteed freedoms, activist Justices screwed up
and shot themselves in the foot playing this cherry-picking game with
the Everson opinion. This is because they really got the wires crossed
with respect to referencing conflicting parts of previous opinions to
justify their outcome driven interpretation of the establishment
clause. The folly of the Everson opinion shows that activist Justices
don't really give a damn about our constitutional freedoms and are
literally attempting to rewrite constitutional history in Court
opinions.

Opelika (1942) is not controlling law. I don't see why you keep going to
it, particularly since you don't seem to understand what was said there.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 03:22:02 PM

On 6 Nov 2005 22:52:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131346365.412174.250010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131335354.804116.157590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

....

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

I did respond quite clearly to this series. The Court has made it clear
that the First Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment.

You keep repeating that as if it is true, but I don't find what you
claim was said, certainly the quote below does not support your claim.

This would mean that section 1 of the 14th
Amendmend is irrelevant to the 1st Amendment because the establishment
clause already prohibited State powers just like it prohibited
Congress's powers:

"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.

You know that 'State' here is not referring to the several states, don't
you?

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

No, you are not answering the question. How do the cases that support
the First Amendment violate the Constitution?

I cannot see things that do not exist.

Regardless of the outcome of the case that you are
crying about, or the outcome of any case for that matter, the Everson
opinion is evidence that activist Justices cherry-pick whichever parts
of previous opinions (and historical documents) that they need,
regardless of the actual outcome of a previous case. They do so
presumably in order to make their outcome-driven opinions for a current
case look as constitutionally sound as possible.

Since you insist on believing this despite the fact that no evidence
supports your claim, I do not see how you will be able to change your
mind just because there is evidence that is contrary to your claim.

Fortunately for our guaranteed freedoms, activist Justices screwed up
and shot themselves in the foot playing this cherry-picking game with
the Everson opinion. This is because they really got the wires crossed
with respect to referencing conflicting parts of previous opinions to
justify their outcome driven interpretation of the establishment
clause. The folly of the Everson opinion shows that activist Justices
don't really give a damn about our constitutional freedoms and are
literally attempting to rewrite constitutional history in Court
opinions.

That makes no sense. It is clear to me that you do not understand this
series of cases.

Opelika (1942) is not controlling law. I don't see why you keep going to
it, particularly since you don't seem to understand what was said there.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 07:02:40 PM

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 22:52:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131346365.412174.250010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131335354.804116.157590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

....

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

I did respond quite clearly to this series. The Court has made it clear
that the First Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment.

You keep repeating that as if it is true, but I don't find what you
claim was said, certainly the quote below does not support your claim.

You know that 'State' here is not referring to the several states, don't
you?

Thank you for acknowledging that. Yes, I know it. But the Everson
paragraph that the extract came from reasonably shows the Justices
didn't know - or didn't want to admit - that Jefferson wasn't also
referring to the several states:
"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.
Contrary to your assertion that Jefferson's "State" isn't referring to
the several states, the above Everson paragraph is reasonably showing
just the opposite, that the Justices are equating Jefferson's "State"
to both federal and State governments.

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

No, you are not answering the question. How do the cases that support
the First Amendment violate the Constitution?

I cannot see things that do not exist.

Anybody can subconsciously ignore things that they don't want to deal
with.

That makes no sense. It is clear to me that you do not understand this
series of cases.

It's clear to me that you don't want to deal with the Everson
church-state separation scandal.

Opelika (1942) is not controlling law. I don't see why you keep going to
it, particularly since you don't seem to understand what was said there.

I'm pointing out the cherry-picking of Constitution-ignoring, activist
Justices.
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	07 Nov 2005 07:37:35 PM

On 7 Nov 2005 11:02:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131388789.863349.176850@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 22:52:45 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131346365.412174.250010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 6 Nov 2005 19:49:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131335354.804116.157590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

....

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

You mean like your unsubstantiated, side-stepping replies to my posts?

I did respond quite clearly to this series. The Court has made it clear
that the First Amendment is applied to the states through the 14th
Amendment.

You keep repeating that as if it is true, but I don't find what you
claim was said, certainly the quote below does not support your claim.

You know that 'State' here is not referring to the several states, don't
you?

Thank you for acknowledging that. Yes, I know it. But the Everson
paragraph that the extract came from reasonably shows the Justices
didn't know - or didn't want to admit - that Jefferson wasn't also
referring to the several states:

"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.

And that is exactly what it meant since the 14th Amendment was passed.
What is confusing you here?

Contrary to your assertion that Jefferson's "State" isn't referring to
the several states, the above Everson paragraph is reasonably showing
just the opposite, that the Justices are equating Jefferson's "State"
to both federal and State governments.

The 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. How hard is
that for you to understand.

Cantwell 1942 opinion established unconstitutional precedent by
implicitly repealing the 10th Amendment. The Cantwell Justices didn't
even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment.

No, you are not answering the question. How do the cases that support
the First Amendment violate the Constitution?

I cannot see things that do not exist.

Anybody can subconsciously ignore things that they don't want to deal
with.

That makes no sense. It is clear to me that you do not understand this
series of cases.

It's clear to me that you don't want to deal with the Everson
church-state separation scandal.

No such scandal exists. You repeat yourself and continue to ignore the
14th Amendment.

Opelika (1942) is not controlling law. I don't see why you keep going to
it, particularly since you don't seem to understand what was said there.

I'm pointing out the cherry-picking of Constitution-ignoring, activist
Justices.

You are the one who wants to cherry pick by ignoring the 14th Amendment.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Where's the 10th Amendment and the Cantwell and Opelika opinions?	08 Nov 2005 12:06:21 AM

David Jensen wrote:

On 7 Nov 2005 11:02:40 -0800, in alt.atheism

And that is exactly what it meant since the 14th Amendment was passed.
What is confusing you here?

The 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. How hard is
that for you to understand.

The 14th Amendment certainly applied the personal rights of the federal
BOR to the States. But the 14th Amendment did not apply the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain powers of the federal government to
the States, regardless what separationists like yourself are trying to
fool everybody to believe. This is evidenced by the fact that the 14th
Amendment not only doesn't say anything about the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions of government power, but an honest Justice wrote the
following in the Opelika opinion about the 10th and 14th Amendments as
they relate to our 1st Amendment freedoms:
"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,11 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." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
As the Opelika extract above indicates, Justices are supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment's protection of sovereign State powers with
the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights.
Anti-religious expression activist Justices are not supposed to use the
14th Amendment as an excuse to rob the States of their 10th Amendment
protected sovereign powers, such as the power to legislate religion.
The problem with the activist interpretation of the Constitution is
that anti-religious expression Justices are wrongly reading things into
the establishment clause and section 1 of the 14th Amendment that are
not there:
"This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is
neither expressed nor implied. Our