The Crux of the current theocrats strategy:
From: "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.education,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.gw-bush
Subject: MAJOR discrepencies have surfaced in USSC church-state separation
opinions
Date: 2 Nov 2005 22:27:04 -0800
With respect to a confused, possibly corrupt Supreme Court, note that
MAJOR discrepancies have surfaced in church-state separation opinions.
At least two Court opinions attempt to portray the Court's inclusion of
the States in the establishment clause as a genuine reflection of the
intensions of the Founding Fathers. These opinions did this by
emphasizing (possibly cherry-picking) Jefferson's "wall of separation"
writing and other period writings. These opinions are the Everson and
Reynolds opinions.
The problem with using Jefferson's coat tails to justify absolute
church-state separation, however, is that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of
separation" himself, had also reflected that the Founding Fathers had
finally decided against absolute church-state separation as evidenced
by the following extract:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
The problem shadowing the reasonable ramifications of the above extract
is that Jefferson's Danbury letter is probably the most common example
used to justify the Court's modern interpretation of the scope of the
1st Amendment. The activist Court, and the liberal media for that
matter, are letting everybody think that the 1st Amendment's
prohibitions on the federal government was also originally meant to
include the State governments. With this in mind, if you are still
reluctant to accept that Jefferson was reflecting that the States had
the power to legislate religion in the extract above, then maybe you'll
believe it when you hear it from the Supreme Court itself...
The Supreme Court slipped up with respect to inadvertently
complementing the ramifications of Jefferson's Rhode Island extract by
confirming that the States do have the power to legislate religion.
In particular, the Court dropped the ball in the Cantwell opinion,
regarded by some people as a major example of legislating from the
bench. The Cantwell opinion reasonably indicates that the 1st
Amendment's prohibitions on certain federal powers didn't include the
States until the 14th Amendment was made:
"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."
This gaffe in the Cantwell opinion clues us about the Supreme Court's
dirty little secret that the Founding Father's had indeed delegated
power to the State governments to legislate religion; this is evidenced
by the 1st and 10th Amendments. But this is contrary to what we are
literally teaching our children today with respect to the fact that
Jefferson's Danbury letter practically stands alone concerning any
official evidence of the so-called constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation. Taking into consideration that the Cantwell
opinion also unsurprisingly fails the 10th Amendment test, the bottom
line is that Americans have been brainwashed by activist judges via the
liberal media to accept, even if reluctantly, that absolute
church-state separation is what the Founding Fathers had decided when
the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I will also point out that corrupt, activist Justices had evidently
failed to get together to corroborate their bluffs concerning the
establishment clause and the 14th Amendment. For example, whereas the
Cantwell opinion was bold with respect to it's sleight-of-hand claim
that the 14th Amendment passed the 1st Amendment's prohibitions on
federal government powers to the States, the Everson opinion erred by
asserting that such prohibitions on State power are inherent in the
establishment clause itself; the Everson Justices forced things into
the establishment clause that are obviously not there. Their
subjective interpretation of the establishment clause is evidenced by
noting that the Everson opinion includes Jefferson's "wall of
separation" words in the same paragraph that includes the Court's "new
and improved" - but unconstitutional - interpretation of the
establishment clause. The Justices presumably referenced Jefferson
famous words to help justify their "insight" into the establishment
clause. But the folly of the Everson opinion doesn't stop here.
Note that the outcome-driven Supreme Court really screwed up with the
Everson opinion by unthinkingly referencing uncomplimentary timelines
from both the Reynolds and Cantwell opinions. This happened because
the Everson Justices unwittingly emphasized both Jefferson's writings
and the 14th Amendment, probably as a consequence of their overzealous
(nervous?) attempt to remove any doubt from our minds as to the
integrity of their bogus interpretation of the establishment clause.
The problem is that the timelines reflected by Jefferson's writings and
the 14th Amendment don't complement each other. More specifically, the
Court's excuse that the States never had the power to legislate
religion to begin with greatly contradicts that Courts excuse that the
States lost their power to legislate religion when the 14th Amendment
was made, a glaring timeline discrepancy of roughly 77 years! Again,
both these timelines are given credibility in the Everson opinion! (So
even crooked Supreme Court Justices don't seem to be able to get their
fabrications to agree.)
The bottom line is that the People will know that that the Founding
Fathers had delegated government power to the States to legislate
religion by means of the 1st and 10th Amendments. The People will know
that the Supreme Court has ignored the intentions of the Founding
Fathers concerning our religious freedoms.
Reynolds v. United States 1878
http://tinyurl.com/aeqqe
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940
http://tinyurl.com/bvoc3
Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
http://tinyurl.com/8dzqg
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 1947
http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8
**************************************************************
Much of this is contained in a essay by the theocrat Alan Keyes:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:| The essay referenced below shows the
:|relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments and religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
[I added]
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" <clarma1@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
* Abortion & Euthanasia
* Affirmative Action
* Homosexual Rights
* Religion / School Prayer
* School Choice
* Second Amendment Rights
* Sex Education
* Taxes & Government Spending
* United Nations
* Welfare / Family Disintegration
.
|
