On 7 Nov 2005 10:18:40 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:15:59 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

No, you corrected nothing, and you have ignored the case law.

"Case law" isn't relevant to Freddies beliefs

Freddie, believes HE can "read" the constitution, make a determination
that particular ruling(s) do not conform to his interpretations--and
therefore are "wrong"

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92

Exactly what LAW is found there?

He circular argues that "founders writings" support his belief, yet
cannot support a claim that "writings, letters, etc" are legally
binding.

Your above statement in an outright lie. I've been pointing out, until
I'm blue in the face, that the Everson Justices unthinkingly
cherry-picked previous opinions without bothering to corroborate them
in order to help bluff its outcome-driven interpretation of the
establishment clause.

There, Freddie, you did it again

YOU just gave YOUR interpretaton.....It's worthless as "truth"

............. -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.

Once again therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and
environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.

But then the nervous Justices unwittingly disagreed with their own
story about Jefferson

What the ***** does a "story about Jefferson" have to do with New
Jersey Laws that won't give funds to A Catholic School?

Jefferson "stories" aren't law.

Again, our anti-religous expression Court has now painted itself into a
corner with respect to the Everson absurdity that the 14th Amendment
took away powers from the States which the Court is also claiming that
the Founding Fathers had never given them in the first place.

The "founding fathers" penned a constitution

The people ratified it

Once ratified, the "founding fathers" had no legal control of the
mechanism

Freddie is one of those who "picks up" (from god knows where), some
obiter dicta (whether the gist of a ruling or not) and expands it to
conform to his odd "interpretations"

To the contrary, I am careful to reference extracts from Court opinions
and historical documents.

"extracts" are obiter dicta, you ninny

But "extracts" aren't the rulings

You're attempting to use "extracts" (obiter dicta) as argument

here's "obiter Dicta" as background contained in the Ruling

"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."

That "dicta" isn't binding---it's not a ruling, it's merely
background.

Here's another:

We must consider the New Jersey statute in accordance with the foregoing
limitations imposed by the First Amendment. But we must not strike that >
state statute down if it is within the state's constitutional power even though
it approaches the verge of that power. See Interstate Consolidated Street Ry.
Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Holmes, J., supra 207 U.S. at
85, 88, 28 S.Ct. 26, 27, 28, 12 Ann.Cas. 555.

New Jersey cannot consistently
with the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment contribute
tax-raised funds to the support of an institution which teaches the tenets and
faith of any church.

This, Then is the Ruling of the court

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory
education laws, send their children to a religious rather than a public school if the school
meets the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose.
See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468.
It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey's requirements.
The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them.
Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help
parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to
and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must
be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
New Jersey has not breached it here.

AFFIRMED.

This ruling has stood

On 7 Nov 2005 10:18:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131387520.201498.213070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:15:59 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

No, you corrected nothing, and you have ignored the case law.

"Case law" isn't relevant to Freddies beliefs

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

How hard is it for you to understand the foregoing?

Again, our anti-religous expression Court has now painted itself into a
corner with respect to the Everson absurdity that the 14th Amendment
took away powers from the States which the Court is also claiming that
the Founding Fathers had never given them in the first place.

First, you will note that the 10th Amendment reserves the rights to the
states or the people. Secondly, nowhere does Cantwell say that the
Founding Fathers had never given them the right. Thirdly, even if they
had said what you claim but cannot produce, the basic interpretation of
the 14th Amendment is sufficient.

Freddie is one of those who "picks up" (from god knows where), some
obiter dicta (whether the gist of a ruling or not) and expands it to
conform to his odd "interpretations"

To the contrary, I am careful to reference extracts from Court opinions
and historical documents.

No, you are not.

I sense he's enamored of his own rambling babbling which is almost
comical sometimes.

Consider that you're unwittingly projecting your personal problems into
me.

That could have been more constructive.

On 7 Nov 2005 10:18:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131387520.201498.213070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:15:59 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

No, you corrected nothing, and you have ignored the case law.

"Case law" isn't relevant to Freddies beliefs

Freddie, believes HE can "read" the constitution, make a determination
that particular ruling(s) do not conform to his interpretations--and
therefore are "wrong"

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

Which is why it is so simple to understand that the 14th Amendment
protects all citizens of the United States not only from the Federal
goverment but also the state governments. It makes certain that the
rights all citizens had in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
applied at the state and federal level. This is not hard to understand.

"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92

He circular argues that "founders writings" support his belief, yet
cannot support a claim that "writings, letters, etc" are legally
binding.

Your above statement in an outright lie. I've been pointing out, until
I'm blue in the face, that the Everson Justices unthinkingly
cherry-picked previous opinions without bothering to corroborate them
in order to help bluff its outcome-driven interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Court's first blunder in Everson was to
twist Jefferson's "wall of separation" words to suggest that the
Founding Fathers had wanted absolute church-state separation all along:

You can say that all you want, but your claim is false. Nothing in
Everson, certainly not the part you repeatedly post supports your claim.
Learn to read case law.

"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erec