http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/thread/d460bebfe01d893d/029c8d7af67c49bb?lnk=st&q=lojbab+beason+davis+++everson&rnum=1&hl=en#029c8d7af67c49bb
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?H4ED21C1C
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/029c8d7af67c49bb?hl=en&
21 Bob LeChevalier
Nov 1, 12:04 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.education, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
From: Bob LeChevalier <> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:04:49 -0500
Local: Tues, Nov 1 2005 12:04 am
Subject: Re: Neither knickkkers or lojbob like the 10th Amendment or church
graduation
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
YOU keep referring to "writing" of Jefferson as IF it had binding
legal authority
You are blissfully ignoring that the main reason that I keep on
referring to Jefferson is because the Court's lying interpretation of
the establishment clause in the Everson opinion is based on the Court's
misrepresentation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" writing:
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.
No, that is NOT what their interpretation was based on. Here is the
section that says what it is based on (see especially the two sections
marked with asterisks):
< ... The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in Virginia
< in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew
< Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established church. Thomas
< Jefferson and James Madison led the fight
< against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance
< against the law. 11 In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion
< did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or
< non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of
< any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds
< of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the
< inevitable result of government-established religions. Madison's
< Remonstrance received strong support throughout Virginia, 12 and the
< Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax measure until
< its next session. When the proposal came up for consideration at that
< session, it not only died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the
< famous 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' originally written by
< Thomas Jefferson. 13 The preamble to that Bill stated among other
< things that
<
<'Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to
< influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil
< incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,
< and are a departure from the plan of the Holy
< author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet
< chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . .; that to
< compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
< opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even
< the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious
< persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his
< contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make
< his pattern ...'
<And the statute itself enacted
<
<'That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
< worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
< restrained, molested, or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall
< otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. . .
< .'14
<
******************************
<This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First
< Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and
< Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were
< intended to provide the same protection against governmental
< intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute. Reynolds v.
< United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall.
< 679; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 , 10 S.Ct. 299, 300. Prior to
******************************
< the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment did not
< apply as a restraint against the states. 15 Most of them did soon
< provide similar constitutional protections for
< religious liberty. 16 But some states persisted for about half a
< century in imposing restraints upon the free exercise of religion and
< in discriminating against particular religious groups. 17 In recent
< years, so far as the provision against the establishment of a
< religion is concerned, the question has most frequently arisen in
< connection with proposed state aid to church schools and efforts to
< carry on religious teachings in the public schools in accordance with
< the tenets of a particular sect. 18 Some churches have either sought
< or accepted state financial support for their schools. Here again the
< efforts to obtain state aid or acceptance of it have not been limited
< to any one particular faith. 19 The state courts, in the main, have
< remained faithful to the language of their own constitutional
< provisions designed to protect religious freedom and to separate
**********************
< religious and governments. Their decisions, however, show the
< difficulty in drawing the line between tax legislation which provides
< funds for the welfare of the general public and that which is
< designed to support institutions which teach religion. 20
**********************
....
<[ Footnote 11 ] II Writings of James Madison, 183.
<
<[ Footnote 12 ] In a recently discovered collection of Madison's
< papers, Madison recollected that his Remonstrance 'met with the
< approbation of the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the
< few Roman Catholics, universally; of the Methodists in part; and even
< of not a few of the Sect formerly established by law.' Madison,
< Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, in
< Fleet, Madison's 'Detached Memorandum,' 3 William and Mary Q. (1946)
< 534, 551, 555.
<
<[ Footnote 13 ] For accounts of background and evolution of the
< Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty see e.g. James, The Struggle for
< Religious Liberty in Virginia (1900); Thom, The Struggle for
< Religious Freedom in Virginia; the Baptists (1900); Cobb, op. cit.,
< supra, note 5, 74-115; Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities,
< Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments, op. cit ., supra, note 12,
< 554, 556.
<
<[ Footnote 14 ] 12 Hening, Statutes of Virginia (1823) 84; Commager,
< Documents of American History (1944) 125.
<
<[ Footnote 15 ] Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of City of New Orleans,
< 3 How. 589. Cf. Barron, for Use of Tiernan v. Mayor and City Council
< of City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243.
<
<[ Footnote 16 ] For a collection of state constitutional provisions on
< freedom of religion see Gavel, Public Funds for Church and Private
< Schools (1937) 148- 149. See also 2 Cooley, Constitutional
< Limitations (1927) 960-985.
<
<[ Footnote 17 ] Test provisions forbade office holders to 'deny ...
< the truth of the Protestant religion,' e.g. Constitution of North
< Carolina 1776, XXXII, II Poore, supra, 1413. Maryland permitted
< taxation for support of the Christian religion and limited civil
< office to Christians until 1818, Id., I, 819, 820, 832.
<
<[ Footnote 18 ] See Note 50 Yale L.J. (1941) 917; see also cases
< collected Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S.D. 366, 50 N.W. 632, 14
< L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R. 1148.
<
<[ Footnote 19 ] See cases collected Synod of Dakota v. State, 2 S.D.
< 366, 50 N.W. 632, 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R. 1148.
<
<[ Footnote 20 ] Ibid. See also Cooley, op. cit., supra, note 16.
See - you apparently want to ignore the legal reasoning and pretend
that the summary quote at the end is the basis. But it is the legal
reasoning that I've quoted, and the cites to previous legal decisions
and arguments which are the basis for a court ruling.
YOU don't get to make ANY "interpretation" of the constitution----only
the USSC does.
What a bunch of baloney. Common sense tells us that anybody who swears
to defend the Constitution is expected to interpret the Constitution -
or else they cannot defend the Constitution.
If they don't abide by the court's interpretation of the Constitution,
then they will generally be held to have violated their oath.
You are ignoring the stark contrast between the 10th Amendment and the
Court's lying interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson
opinion that I included above.
The 10th amendment imposes no limits on what powers other sections of
the constitution can "delegate to the United States", and thus is
utterly irrelevant when power is explicitly delegated, as in the last
line of the 14th amendment.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Reply
********************************************************************************
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/misc.education/msg09702.html
Re: Law and religion - moral issues
* __From__: buckeye-ELO
* __Subject__: Re: Law and religion - moral issues
* __Date__: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:09:33 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Clark) wrote:
:|Weatherwax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:|
:|> "M. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message \
:|>
:|> >
:|> > It so happens that Jefferson's church/state separation
:|> > writing is older than two of the three writings of his that I
:|> > posted. So the Court gave one of Jefferson's OLDER
:|> > writings the force of the law in the mid 1900's, long after
:|> > Jefferson was dead.
:|>
:|> The Supreme Court is well aware that prior to the 14th Amendment,
:|> that the states could meddle in religious matters. Therefore
:|> that Jefferson's statement that the states could do so is nothing
:|> new. Do you get that: The Court already knew it.
:|
:|SHOW ME where any Court opinion referenced Jefferson's writings
:|pertaining to the power of the States to address religious issues.
They didn't have to idiot.
The writings that you carefully excerpt (1) one comment out of one letter,
and the entire letter deals with separation of church and state, (2) select
one phrase out of one of his inaugural address and keep offering have one
MAJOR FLAW FOR YOU. Both were penned while legally speaking, the US
Constitution was only being applied to the Federal Government. people knew
that, jefferson knew that and courts then and later knew that. Therefore
your excerpts mean nothing in this day and age, since law began changing
in the late 1800s long after Jefferson's death. That sort of tended to
limit his ability to write of his approval of said changes.
Idiots like Moore and a few other radical libbertarians and ultra right
types push what you are talking about and they even have one USSC Justice
who buys it, none other than Clarence Thomas, but that is it. Even Scalia
dand Rehnquist reject that concept.
***********************************
SOME HISTORY LESSON IS REQUIRED I SEE:
[ACTUAL HISTORY]
(1) 1789
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 ironic that this particular Article was numbered fourteen and that it
called for selective incorporation of other amendments in the "BORs
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 "BORs package" against the states.
****************************************************************
AUGUST 17, 1789-- FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS (Amendments)
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. (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.)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the
United States (Annals of Congress) August 17, 1789, Vol. I, Joseph Gales,
published by Gales and Seaton, Washington, 1834, pp 749-756 )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
====================================================
(2) 1868 The 14th Amendment was ratified.
******************************************
(3) 1898
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
[*** emphasis added***]
SECTION L-- Religious Liberty
The Constitution -- The Constitution as originally adopted declared
that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under tile United States." By amendment it was
further provided that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
Establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," Both
these provisions, it; will be seen are limitations upon the powers of
Congress only. Neither' the original Constitution nor any of the early
amendments undertook to protect the religions. liberty of the people of
the States against the action of their respective state governments. ***The
fourteenth- amendment is perhaps; broad enough to give some securities if
they should be needful.***(emphasis added)
[SNIP]
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, By Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., Third Edition
By Andrew C. McLaughlin, A.M., L.L B. [Professor of American History,
University of Michigan] Little, Brown, and Company 1898, pp 224-227)
================================================================
(4) The following shows when each provision in the BOR's was incorporated
in the 14th Amendment:
(1) 1897 -- Right to Just Compensation -- Chicago, Burlington & Qunicy
Railway Company v Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
(1) 1925 -- FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (19250
[dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]
(1) 1931 -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679 (1931)
(6) 1932 -- Assistance of Counsel in capital case -- [my info might be
wrong on the case in this one because it lists the case at 1963, so there
is a typo or something involved in this one] Peterson v City of Greenville,
373 U.S. 244 (1963)
(1) 1937 -- FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)
(1) 1940 -- FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S.
296 (1940)
(1) 1947 -- BAN ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT -- Everson v Board Of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
(4) 1948 -- Right to public trial -- Oliver, In re, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)
(4) 1949 -- Right against unreasonable Search and Seizure-- Wolf v
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
(1) 1958 -- FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
The rest we are going to just list and not bother to put the case in as
well. If anyone wants the case name let us know.
(4) 1961 -- Exclusionary Rule
(8) 1962 -- Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment
(6) 1963 -- Assistance of counsel in all felony cases
(5) 1964 -- Right against Self-incrimination
(6) 1965 -- Right to confront adverse witnesses
(6) 1966 -- Right to impartial trial
(6) 1967 -- Right to Compulsory Process to obtain witnesses
(6) 1967 -- Right to Speedy Trial
(6) 1968 -- Right to Jury in nonpetty criminal cases
(5) 1969 -- Right against Double Jeopardy
(6) 1972 -- Right to counsel imprisonable misdemeanor cases
(6) 1972 -- Right to notice of accusation
(6) 1979 -- Right to a unanimous verdict if only six jurors
(Source information: The Evolving Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman,
Random House (1992) pp 260
=========================================================
[LEGAL EVOLUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT]
(1) The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the
states, 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 ....' [Majority opinion
Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
***************************************
The real contention of the witnesses is that there can be no taxation of
the occupation of selling books and pamphlets because to do so would be
contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which now
is held to have drawn the contents of the First Amendment into the category
of individual rights protected [319 U.S. 105, 121] from state
deprivation. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 45 S.Ct. 625, 630;
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707 , 51 S.Ct. 625, 708; Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. . .
The First Amendment reads as follows: '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; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.'
It was one of twelve proposed on September 25, 1789, to the States by the
First Congress after the adoption of the Constitution. Ten were ratified.
They were intended to be and have become our Bill of Rights. By their terms
our people have a guarantee that so long as law as we know it shall
prevail, they shall live protected from the tyranny of the despot or the
mob. None of the provisions of our Constitution is more venerated by the
people or respected by legislatures and the courts than those which
proclaim for our country the freedom of religion and expression. . .
The amendments were proposed by [319 U.S. 105, 125] Mr. Madison. He was
careful to explain to the Congress the meaning of the amendment on
religion. The draft was commented upon by Mr. Madison when it read: 'No
religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed.'1 Annals of Congress 729.
He said that he apprehended the meaning of the words on religion to be that
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation
of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their
conscience. Id., 730.
It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have
been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states. 11 Until then these
liberties were not deemed to be guarded from state action by the Federal
Constitution. 12 The states placed [319 U.S. 105, 127] restraints upon
themselves in their own constitutions in order to protect their people in
the exercise of the freedoms of speech and of religion. 13 Pennsylvania may
be taken as a fair example. Its constitution reads: 'All men have a natural
and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or
support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his
consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere
with the rights of conscience and no preference shall ever be given by law
to any religious establishments or modes of worship.' Purdon's
Penna.Stat.Const., Art. I, Sec. 3.
[dissent-Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
******************************************
The following shows when each provision of the FIRST AMENDMENT was
incorporated in the 14th Amendment:
(1) 1925 -- FREEDOM OF SPEECH -- Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (19250
[dictum]
1927 -- Fiske v Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927) [holding]
(1) 1931 -- FREEDOM OF THE PRESS -- Near v Minnesota, 283 U.S. 679 (1931)
(1) 1937 -- FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY -- DeJonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. (1937)
(1) 1940 -- FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION -- Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S.
296 (1940)
(1) 1947 -- BAN ON RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT -- Everson v Board Of Education,
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
(1) 1958 -- FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION -- NAACP v Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
(Source information: The Evolving Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman,
Random House (1992) pp 260
****************************************
SOME OF THE COURT CASES THAT PRECEDDED EVERSON v. BD OF ED
Some of The Supreme Court's Decisions in Church and State:
Most of these cases are not Establishment Clause cases, a couple are.
However, they do show that Everson v Board of Education in 1947 wasn't the
first time the United States Supreme Court dealt with church and state, as
some people claim.
* Terrett v. Tylor (1815) First case to reach the USSC in the realm of
Church and State
* Vidal v Girard's Executors. (1844) The next case decided by the
United States Supreme Court in which it considered the relationship between
religion and the state.
* Permoli v. Municipality of New Orleans (1845)
* Watson v. Jones (1872)
* Reynolds v. U S (1878)
* Davis v. Beason (1890)
* Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints v. U S (1890)
* Church of the Holy Trinity v. U S (1892)
* Bradford v. Roberts (1890) This was a case directly involving the 1st
Amendment, Establishment Clause.
* Jacobson v. Mass. (1905)
* Quick Bear v. Lapp (1908)
* Arver v. U S (1918) Selective Service case
* Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
* Cochran v. La. State Board of Education (1930)
* U S v. Macintosh (1931)
* Haminto v. Regents of the U of California (1934)
* Lovell v Griffin (1938)
* Cantwell v. Conn. (1940) First case that applied the Bill of Rights
against the states. This was a Free Exercise case
* Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
* Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
* Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
* Jones v. Opelika (1942)
* Murdock v. Pa. (1943)
* Jones v. Opelika (2d) (1943)
* Matrin v. City of Struthers (1943)
* West Virginia State Bd of Ed v. Barnett (1943)
* Taylor v. Mississippi (1943)
* U S v. Ballard (1944)
* Prince v. Mass. (1944)
* Follett v. Town of McCormack (1944)
* In re Summers (1945)
* Girouard v. U S (1946)
* Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
* Everson v. Bd of Ed (1947) First case to define the rule of law with
regards to the establishment clause and first Establishment Clause
application against the states via Bill of Rights.
Church and State in the United States, by Anson Phelps Stokes
(1874-1958) and Leo Pfeffer. Revised one-volume edition, Harper & Row,
Publishers, (1964) pp. 104-129.
********************************************
:|> It was not Jeffersons "wall of separation" remark. They applied
:|> the "establishment" clause to the states because freedom of
:|> religion is so fundamental that it becomes one of the liberties
:|> quaranteed by by the 14th Amendment.
:|
:|You're living in a fantasy world if you think that the 14th Amendement
:|is being used to protect religious liberties. The Abington Township
:|School District v. Schempp case, for example, is regarded as the pivotal
:|case that "kicked God and prayer out of the schools".
LOL.
What sort of God can be physically kicked out of a physical building?
It must be a very little weak pitiful type of God that could be subject to
man and his ability to do this to a God.
However, as usual you are lying again.
(1) Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jnt-sta.htm
(2) Abington School District v. Schempp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp
:|
:|Also, don't you remember the following reference?:
:|
:|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/10.html
:|
:|It contains this paragraph:
:|
:|Other assertions of the liberty to be free from compulsory state
:|provisions proved unsuccessful, 188 although dicta in these cases
:|continued to broadly define liberty. 189 And in Loving v. Virginia, 190
:|a statute prohibiting interracial marriage was held to deny due process.
:|Marriage was termed ''one of the 'basic civil rights of man''' and a
:|''fundamental freedom.'' ''The freedom to marry has long been recognized
:|as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
:|happiness by free men.'' The classification of marriage rights on a
:|racial basis was ''unsupportable.'' But the expansion of the Bill of
:|Rights to restrict state action, especially the religion and free
:|expression provisions of the First Amendment, afforded the Court an
:|opportunity to base certain decisions voiding state policies on these
:|grounds rather than on due process. 191
:|
:|I noted that the above paragraph doesn't mention anything about the 1st
:|Amendment's establishment clause but refers only to the guaranteed
:|freedom provisions of the last part of the 1st Amendment:
:|
:|"...especially the religion and free expression provisions of the First
:|Amendment..."
:|
Well, sonny why don't you use those same annotations where they do refer to
the religious clauses and free expression. They are there you know.
After all the topic is Religion and not marriage.
:|The Supreme Court ultimately used Jefferson's famous church/state
:|separation writing to justify broadening the scope of the establishment
:|clause of the 1st Amendment to the States.
Liar.
The Supreme Court ultimately used a wide variety of sources in reaching a
definition for the Establishment Clause. If any individual gets singled
out it would be Madison, far more than Jefferson.
Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
footnotes that the court used to pen that definition:
Footnotes to Everson v. Bd of Ed.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
:| (The ONLY restriction in the
:|1st Amendment, as reflected by Jefferson's lesser known writings,
:|clearly applies ONLY to Congress, not to the States.)
LOL, no one has ever claimed anything different. BTW,
on the lesser claim, where is your evidence that they were less known or
not known or overlooked, etc?
:|The problem is that the Court couldn't have picked a worse person to
:|quote with respect to justifying restricting the power of the States to
:|address religious issues. This is because Jefferson himself recognized
:|that the States have the power to address religious issues. But the
:|Court was evidently unaware of Jefferson's complete perspective of
:|church/state separation and set a precedent for later Courts to make
:|unconstitutional decisions with respect to church/state separation
:|cases.
:|
:|M. Clark, internet troll and nutcase.
:|>
The USSC has ignored and thus rejected you position.
This was originally written to another troll, Jeffy Strickland but it will
work here as well.
*************************************
(10) A wacko that is arguing that the U S Constitution is not the supreme
law of the land, that the Alabama Constitution trumps the U S Constitution.
States rights (the sovereign state of Alabama is above the U S
Constitution) takes precedence over the U S Constitution
This same argument was made by another Alabama politician back in the 80s.
I point you in the direction of
Jaffree v Wallace, 554 F.Supp 1104, (1983)
Jaffree v Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (1983)
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
You have to read all three cases to understand them
This was a Moment of silence school prayer case.
The Wallace being mentioned in the name of the case is none other than that
famous or infamous Gov. Geo Wallace.
The final outcome of this case was this:
Parent of three public school children filed complaint against various
school officials and Alabama state officials which, inter alia, challenged
constitutionality of an Alabama school prayer and meditation statute. The
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, William
Brevard Hand, Chief Judge, dismissed challenge to the statute, 5M F.Supp.
1104. An appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, 705 F.2d 1526, affirmed in
part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. After a suggestion
for rehearing en banc was denied, 713 F.2d 614, appeals were taken. The
Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that Alabama statute [Ala.Code 1975, §
161-20.1] authorizing a daily period of silence in public schools for
meditation or voluntary prayer was an endorsement of religion lacking any
clearly secular purpose, and thus was a law respecting the establishment of
religion in violation of First Amendment.
Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed, Justice Powell filed concurring
opinion, Justice O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment,Chief
Justice Burger dissented and filed an opinion, Justice White dissented and
filed an opinion, Justice Rehnquist dissented and filed an opinion.
*************************************
What was important about the above case was
(1) its ultimate ruling as stated above.
(2) The ultra conservatives, some libbertarians, the radical religious
right and some conservatives love it because of the flawed historical
dissent Rehnquist wrote and filed. I guess that is why truth isn't
important to them, they hang their hat on a dissenting opinion that is
seriously inaccurate.
(3) The ultra conservatives, some libbertarians, the radical religious
right hate it because the Alabama Federal District Court Judge, a native
of Alabama advanced the same idea that Moore is now trying to advance. That
being 14th Amendment incorporation is illegal and that the Establishment
Clause does not apply to the states.
When Jaffree case reached the USSC the high court had so much contempt for
that line of argument they totally refused to even acknowledge it. Even the
conservatives on the court, including Rehnquist totally ignored that line
of argument and never gave it the light of day.
In short, Jeffy, while any court is liable to do anything and only a fool
would say a court WILL DO THIS or WON'T DO THAT, the odds are better than
50% that given all of the above, including previous refusals to get
involved in a 10 Commandment cases by the high court, this would not be a
case they would take, even if they had a change of heart and wanted to rule
on that topic. This particular case has far too much baggage attached to
it.
************************************************************
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/misc.education/msg09605.html
Re: Law and religion - moral issues
* __From__: buckeye-ELO
* __Subject__: Re: Law and religion - moral issues
* __Date__: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:44:20 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Clark) wrote:
:|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:|
:|> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Clark) wrote:
:|> >:|The Supreme Court has been basing its church/state separation decisions
:|> >:|on Jefferson's famous "separation of church and state" writing. This is
:|> >:|evidenced by the Court opinions for cases such as Everson and Murdock.
:|> >:|But these opinions don't reference Jefferson's lesser known writings
:|> >:|which show that Jefferson recognized that the States do have the
:|> >:|constitutional power to address religious issue. The bottom line is
:|> >:|that the SC hasn't done its homework with respect to Jefferson and is
:|> >:|consequently screwing things up with respect to church/state separation
:|> >:|issues.
:|>
:|> Liar
:|>
:|> You enjoy lying and must enjoy being caught lying;
:|>
:|> Everson v. Bd of Ed defined the Establishment Clause. Here are the
:|> footnotes that the court used to pen the definition: Footnotes to Everson
:|> V. Bd of Ed.
:|> http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12525BA6
:|>
:|> You will find that a good many sources were used with Jefferson only being
:|> one of many.
:|> But you have been told that before and you still lie.
:|>
:|> The particular writings of Jefferson you refer to existed in a specific
:|> time period, a period that no longer exists.
:|
:|It so happens that Jefferson's church/state separation writing is older
:|than two of the three writings of his that I posted. So the Court gave
:|one of Jefferson's OLDER writings the force of the law in the mid
:|1900's, long after Jefferson was dead.
FACTS:
(1) Thomas Jefferson did not create church state separation in Virginia or
in the United States. James Madison played a far larger role in that
particular undertaking, both in Virginia and in the United States than his
buddy Jefferson did.
(2) The USSC did not give Thomas Jefferson's writings per se any force of
law. The USSC in a 1879 case said in dicta the following:
In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the
convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of
this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as
minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution
proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his
disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the
freedom of religion, but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that
the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the
necessary alterations. 1 Five of the States, while adopting the 1
Constitution, proposed amendments. Three, New Hampshire, New York and
Virginia, included in one form or another a declaration of religious
freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North
Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution
until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first
session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was
proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of
religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to
an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took
occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies
solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the Government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that
act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature
should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the Supreme will of the
Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see, with sincere
satisfaction, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the
advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative
declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress
was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free
to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of
good order.
SOURCE: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, (1879)
The case was NOT decided on the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise
Clause but rather was decided under civil contract/marriage law.
Thus what the court said with regards to Jefferson, etc was not a legal
ruling or even a real rule of law.
.
|
