| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 04:15:33 PM |
| Object: |
JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION" |
LEGAL EVOLUTION OF CHURCH STATE CASES
State and U.S. Supreme Court Cases - 1799-1947
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/caselist.htm
*********************************************************************
MORE INDEPTH LOOK AT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE EVOLUTION
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/65/print
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=310&invol=296
Cantwell v. Connecticut (docket #: 632) (1940) [Findlaw]
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=898
Bottom of above site: Commentary
RJ&L Religious Liberty Archieve
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/commentaries/cantwellvconnecticut.asp
Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
During the 1930s and 1940s several First Amendment cases involving
Jehovah's Witnesses reached the Supreme Court. In Cantwell v. Connecticut,
the Court reversed the state's conviction of three Jehovah's Witnesses, on
grounds of religious liberty. Never before had the Court invalidated the
action of a state for this reason. For such a decision even to be possible,
the religion clause had to be understood as applying to the states, and
Cantwell's chief importance lies in the fact that it stands for this
proposition. "The Fourteenth Amendment," the Court maintained, "has
rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact
such laws," i.e., laws "respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Cantwell opened the door to federal litigation over religion-clause claims
against the states, and most of the religion-clause cases decided by the
Supreme Court since 1940 have involved such claims. By contrast, all of the
few religion-clause cases the Court decided during its first 150 years
involved claims against the federal government.
While the Court did hold that both provisions of the religion clause apply
to the states, the Cantwells based their appeal on the free-exercise
provision, and the case is usually understood in those terms. The Court's
reasoning and the cases it cited in footnotes suggest that the Court also
saw the case in terms of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of
speech.
**************************************************************************************
From the opinion of Cantwell:
First. We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the
appellants, deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in
contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of
liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the
First Amendment. 3 The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of
the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The
constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a
double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the
acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of
conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of
worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the
other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.
Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to
act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296,
304] second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the
protection of society. 4 The freedom to act must have appropriate
definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case
the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a
permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.
************************************************************************
http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html
Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=316&invol=584
Slim majority of court upheld an ordinance requiring a fee for a license to
sell books. The case was brought by Jehovah's Witnesses who wanted to sell
religious literature in the Alabama town.
**************************************************************************
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105
Slim majority of court overruled Jones v. Opelika and ruled that imposing a
fee to sell religious literature door-to-door was too great a burden on
religious liberty. Case was brought by Jehovah's Witnesses.
From body of opinion in Murdock:
Petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were
denied. The cases are here on petitions for writs of certiorari which we
granted along with the petitions for rehearing of Jones v. Opelika, 316
U.S. 584 , 62 S.Ct. 1231, 141 A.L.R. 514, and its companion cases. [319
U.S. 105, 108] 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 ....'
*********************************************************************************
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
By your faulty logic, the USSC has totalitarian powers.
You apparently don't know what the word means.
You're comically commparing YOUR beliefs and self-interpretations to
adverse ruling YOU don't like.
The Court cannot point to Jefferson's "wall of separation" writing to
help defend its lying claim that the establishment clause also applies
to the states
It doesn't. It points to the 14th amendment, and a prior court case:
<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,
< commands that a state 'shall make no law respecting an establishment
< of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
Jefferson's quote is utterly irrelevant to that invocation of stare
decisis. Rather, you need to read the case referenced;
319 U.S. 105
which was a rehearing of an earlier case
316 U.S. 584
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=316&invol=584
If you had actually done your homework, you would know that the
amendment had been specifically dealt with, and it did not rely on any
quotes from Jefferson. From the latter (JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 316 U.S.
584, 593-594, 595, 597 (1942) ) case:
<We turn to the constitutional problem squarely presented by these
< ordinances. There are ethical principles of greater value to mankind
< than the guarantees of the Constitution, personal liberties which are
< beyond the power of government to impair. These principles and
< liberties belong to the mental and spiritual realm where the
< judgments and decrees of mundane courts are ineffective to direct the
< course of man. The rights of which our Constitution speaks have a
< more earthy quality. They are not absolutes10 to be exercised
< independently of other cherished privileges, protected by the same
< organic instrument. 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. 12
< Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences
< of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think
< contrary to their convictions, but courts are
< competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional
< right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free
< exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is
< limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. 13
< So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions
< rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his
< fellows.
Thus asserting that the courts have the power to rule on conflicts
between the 14th amendment and the 10th.
<Upon the courts falls the duty of determining the validity of such
< enactments as may be challenged as unconstitutional by litigants.
and that the courts have the power and DUTY to rule legislative
enactments unconstitutional when presented with a valid case.
<...
<The freedoms claimed by those seeking relief here are guaranteed
< against abridgement by the Fourteenth Amendment. Its commands protect
< their rights. The legislative power of municipalities must yield when
< abridgement is shown.
And thus shows that in such a conflict, the power of lesser government
authorities must yield to the 14th.
Jefferson was irrelevant, and by stare decisis, so was the 10th.
lojbab
**************************************************************************
EVERSON v BD OF ED
the 10th Amendment have any bearing on the Establishment Clause.
My evidence:
Item #1 (Kindly note the very last sentence in particular.The following
was written by a lawyer)
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law Written by Susan Batte
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church and
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified and
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionary)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refers
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden from
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant only
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any other
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
http://candst.tripod.com/bthot-lr.htm
**********************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
*************************************************************
Neither Jefferson nor his letter created church state separation.
The Principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution while Jefferson was in France.
Madison had and has a major bearing on all forms of church state
jurisprudence (Over 100 state and federal court cases)
All court opinions in the realm fall under the accommodational position of
J Story or the strict separation position of Madison or some combination
of the two.
They are basically revivals of the old debate between the Storyites and
the Madisonians.
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
As the information I provided in the following shows, Madison defined the
Establishment Clause and it was the Madison view that the USSC used in
Everson v Bd of Ed in legally (by court of law) defining the Establishment
Clause:
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
07 Nov 2005 07:53:36 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
"Article 1: 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."
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
"Article 14, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"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.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
LEGAL EVOLUTION OF CHURCH STATE CASES
State and U.S. Supreme Court Cases - 1799-1947
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/caselist.htm
*********************************************************************
MORE INDEPTH LOOK AT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE EVOLUTION
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
<snipped for brevity>
If you had actually done your homework, you would know that the
amendment had been specifically dealt with, and it did not rely on any
quotes from Jefferson. From the latter (JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 316 U.=
S=2E
584, 593-594, 595, 597 (1942) ) case:
<We turn to the constitutional problem squarely presented by these
< ordinances. There are ethical principles of greater value to mankind
< than the guarantees of the Constitution, personal liberties which are
< beyond the power of government to impair. These principles and
< liberties belong to the mental and spiritual realm where the
< judgments and decrees of mundane courts are ineffective to direct the
< course of man. The rights of which our Constitution speaks have a
< more earthy quality. They are not absolutes10 to be exercised
< independently of other cherished privileges, protected by the same
< organic instrument. 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. 12
< Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences
< of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think
< contrary to their convictions, but courts are
< competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional
< right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free
< exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is
< limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. 13
< So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions
< rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his
< fellows.
Thus asserting that the courts have the power to rule on conflicts
between the 14th amendment and the 10th.
Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits that the 10th Amendment exists!
<Upon the courts falls the duty of determining the validity of such
< enactments as may be challenged as unconstitutional by litigants.
and that the courts have the power and DUTY to rule legislative
enactments unconstitutional when presented with a valid case.
<...
<The freedoms claimed by those seeking relief here are guaranteed
< against abridgement by the Fourteenth Amendment. Its commands protect
< their rights. The legislative power of municipalities must yield when
< abridgement is shown.
And thus shows that in such a conflict, the power of lesser government
authorities must yield to the 14th.
Jefferson was irrelevant, and by stare decisis, so was the 10th.
lojbab
**************************************************************************
EVERSON v BD OF ED
the 10th Amendment have any bearing on the Establishment Clause.
My evidence:
Item #1 (Kindly note the very last sentence in particular.The following
was written by a lawyer)
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law Written by Susan Batte
1. The Constitution did not provide any mechanism for the establishment
of religion or for the support of religion.
Susan Batte is a liar because the 10th Amendment of the federal BOR
automatically reserved the power to legislate religion to the States
since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to
Congress (federal government).
2. Religious tests were the primary mechanism for perpetuating an
established church within the political structure.
3. The Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests or oaths for
office.
THEREFORE, the Constitution created the concept of Separation of Church a=
nd
State by providing nothing in the constitution that supports the idea that
Government as Government is allowed to support any religion for any reason
and by specifically prohibiting the primary political mechanism for
supporting religion.
The use of the word "Government" in the above statement is misleading
because the Founding Fathers made a major distinction between the
federal and State governments as evidenced by these words from
Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself:
"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
So Jefferson also reflected that the Founding Fathers had decided for
the States to uniquely possess the power to legislate religion as
evidenced by the 1st and 10th Amendments.
The 1st Amendment may only be interpreted, as being consistent with the
Constitution and the views expressed in the Constitution concerning
religion because:
1. The 1st Amendment was drafted after the Constitution was ratified a=
nd
was not designated as repealing any provision in the Constitution.
2. The 1st Amendment does not provide any mechanism for establishing
religion.
3. The 1st Amendment does provide the mechanism to allow an individual
as an individual and not as government to exercise the religion of his or
her choice.
THEREFORE, the 1st Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that some
governmental entities may support religion in some ways (i.e., vouchers,
welfare programs, etc.).
Once the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing religion by
prohibiting it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion
- Congress was thereby precluded from passing any kind of appropriation
bill to fund any religious enterprise.
In order for the above to be true, the interpretation of "establishment"
would have to be broad, and in fact the broad interpretation of
"establishment" is supported. First, the O.E.D. (Oxford English Dictionar=
y)
sets out a 1561 definition of establishment as "a means of establishing;
something that strengthens, supports or corroborates. Into the 1700s -
1800s, "establishment" could be defined as "the establishing by law (a
church, religion, form of worship.) As an example, the O.E.D. sets out the
following: 1886 Earl Selborne De Ch. Eng. I. iv. 77 All such relations of
the Church to the State as those which are summed up in the term
'Establishment'.
Second, a broad interpretation of"establishment" is consistent with the
indefinite article that proceeds it. "An"'establishment of religion' refe=
rs
to all or any religious establishment --- not to one or some
establishments. In the absence of definiteness, the inclusion of "of one
Christian sect over another" after "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment" would be necessary if, as Mr. Barton argues, the 1st
Amendment was all about stamping out competing rivalries between Christian
sects.
In addition, the operative word in the Establishment Clause is RESPECTING.
Respecting an establishment of religion. Any religious institution, be it=
a
20 member country church or a huge multimillion member international
religion, is an establishment of religion. The government is forbidden fr=
om
making any laws, positive or negative that would pertain to an
establishment of religion.
The narrow definition of establishment is that the 1st Amendment meant on=
ly
to prevent a "State Church" from being officially sanctioned by the
Government. (In this way, some people have tried to argue that supporting
religious schools doesn't establish anything.) However, such a narrow
reading of "Establishment" would need specific language added to the
Amendment to support it since a plain language reading of the Constitution
clearly shows no bias for (or against) Christianity as opposed to any oth=
er
religion or even irreligion. And neither does the 1st Amendment.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that the 10th Amendment is not
implicated in the matter of funding religious schools. The 14th amendment
applies the establishment clause against states
http://candst.tripod.com/bthot-lr.htm
**********************************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=3De=
n&lr=3D
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
*************************************************************
Neither Jefferson nor his letter created church state separation.
The Principle of church state separation was embodied in the unamended
constitution while Jefferson was in France.
Madison had and has a major bearing on all forms of church state
jurisprudence (Over 100 state and federal court cases)
All court opinions in the realm fall under the accommodational position of
J Story or the strict separation position of Madison or some combination
of the two.
They are basically revivals of the old debate between the Storyites and
the Madisonians.
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
As the information I provided in the following shows, Madison defined the
Establishment Clause and it was the Madison view that the USSC used in
Everson v Bd of Ed in legally (by court of law) defining the Establishment
Clause:
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 02:57:45 AM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 11:53:36 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion,
If you fund something---you "establish"
If you use religious dogma as "law"--that's promoting
Any of this gettin' thru to you, Freddie?
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
the USSC has the right to determine what "powers are prohibited to
states" by the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 07:38:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 11:53:36 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion,
If you fund something---you "establish"
If you use religious dogma as "law"--that's promoting
Any of this gettin' thru to you, Freddie?
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
the USSC has the right to determine what "powers are prohibited to
states" by the Constitution.
You're assertion about the USSC is sleight-of-hand for saying that the
USSC is above the Constitution. Jefferson warned us about people like
you:
"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
Not only did Marbury v. Madison decide that the USSC is not above the
Constitution but other honest Justices have told us that the USSC is
not above the Constitution either:
"This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is
neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to
make it." -- Slaughterhouse Cases 1872
For the nth time, the 10th Amendment delegated the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited
this power only to Congress (federal government).
The following extract from Cantwell is a lie concerning the competency
of the States to address religion:
"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.
The above extract is a lie because only some of the States had shown
themselves to be incompetent with respect to abridging personal federal
rights. But other States had shown that they were quite capable of
balancing their 10th Amendment protected sovereign freedoms with the
personal federal rights of US citizens without the 14th Amendment.
The only reason that activist judges are now getting away with stifling
religious expression is because the constitutionally illiterate
American public doesn't know that the 10th Amendment is as important
with respect to protecting their religious freedoms as the 1st
Amendment is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 09:23:30 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 11:38:58 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 11:53:36 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion,
If you fund something---you "establish"
If you use religious dogma as "law"--that's promoting
Any of this gettin' thru to you, Freddie?
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
the USSC has the right to determine what "powers are prohibited to
states" by the Constitution.
You're assertion about the USSC is sleight-of-hand for saying that the
USSC is above the Constitution. Jefferson warned us about people like
you:
The USSC is the only entity allowed to interpret what it means.
If the court would "rule" that you have "no right" to express
yourself, the check/balance would be to either not enforce the law,
order an impeachment of the justices, or some other means that woujld
never allow that to be law.
Not only did Marbury v. Madison decide that the USSC is not above the
Constitution but other honest Justices have told us that the USSC is
not above the Constitution either:
Well, that don't make sense
For the nth time, the 10th Amendment delegated the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited
this power only to Congress (federal government).
It does not.
The right of a citizen to ALL guarantees of the constitution
(including being free government promotion of religion) is enforceable
under the due process clause.
The state cannot have a "right" or "power" that abrogates the rights
of any citizen simply because YOU read it as such.
If you think you're smarter than Judge Roy Moore---then join the
discredited little *****.
The following extract from Cantwell is a lie concerning the competency
of the States to address religion:
"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, some fucking few lines in pages long decisions are your
"authority"?
Here's the gist of Cantwell
Father and 2 sons arrested for spreading Jehovahs material in Catholic
neighborhood
Convicted under various state and local laws
Their convictions were reversed, the court saying:
..."Nothing we have said is intended even remotely to imply that,
under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity, commit frauds
upon the public>
Second. We hold that, in the circumstances disclosed, the conviction of
Jesse Cantwell on the fifth count must be set aside.
Decision as to the lawfulness of the conviction demands the weighing of
two conflicting interests. The fundamental law declares the interest
of the United States that the free exercise of religion be not prohibited
and that freedom to communicate information and opinion be not abridged.
The only reason that activist judges are now getting away with stifling
religious expression is because the constitutionally illiterate
American public doesn't know that the 10th Amendment is as important
with respect to protecting their religious freedoms as the 1st
Amendment is.
Ya dummy fred
The court ruled that the law prohibiting the solititation of funds was
unconstitutional
The Cantwells convictions were overturned BECAUSE the government
cannot abrogate their "right" to "excercise their religion"
Further:
Although the contents of the record not unnaturally aroused animosity,
we think that, in the absence of a statute narrowly drawn to define and
punish specific conduct as constituting a clear and present danger to
a substantial interest of the State, the petitioner's communication,
considered in the light of the constitutional guarantees, raised no such
clear and present menace to public peace and order as to render him
liable to conviction of the common law offense in question. 10
The judgment affirming the convictions on the third and fifth counts is reversed
and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
So the Cantwell decision did NOT allow the state to deter the
Cantwells
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 08:32:58 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
For the nth time, the 10th Amendment delegated the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited
this power only to Congress (federal government).
And for the nth time, Fred can't explain why, if his argument is
correct, the States weren't also delegated the power to abrigde free
speech, free press, and free exercise of religion, since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
The only reason that activist judges are now getting away with stifling
religious expression is because the constitutionally illiterate
American public doesn't know that the 10th Amendment is as important
with respect to protecting their religious freedoms as the 1st
Amendment is.
And constitutionally illiterate folks like Fred can't understand that
the judges are not stifling individual religious expression. The
reason for their problem is simple: they can't distinguish between
individual action and governmental action.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
07 Nov 2005 07:59:49 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
"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.
It's astonishing how Fred continues to cite a decision that was
overruled. It's like citing Plessy v. Ferguson for the proposition
that racial segregation by law is constitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 06:43:44 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote:
:|
:|fred wrote:
:|
:|> "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.
:|
:|It's astonishing how Fred continues to cite a decision that was
:|overruled. It's like citing Plessy v. Ferguson for the proposition
:|that racial segregation by law is constitutional.
He is a not too tightly wound troll
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
07 Nov 2005 08:56:13 PM |
|
|
cpt banjo wrote:
fred wrote:
"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.
It's astonishing how Fred continues to cite a decision that was
overruled. It's like citing Plessy v. Ferguson for the proposition
that racial segregation by law is constitutional.
Your separationist tunnel-vision is blinding you to the religious
expression "civil war" that is certainly going on within the walls of
the Supreme Court. The Everson opinion is evidence that activist
Justices cherry-pick whatever parts of previous opinions (and
historical documents) that they need to bluff their anti-religious
expression agenda, 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 care about our constitutional freedoms and are literally
attempting to rewrite constitutional history in Court opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JEFFERSON & THE CONSTITUTIONAL "WALL OF SEPARATION"; Bravo! buckeye-ELO finally admits 10th Amendment exists! |
08 Nov 2005 03:01:18 AM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 12:56:13 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
The Everson opinion is evidence that activist
Justices cherry-pick whatever parts of previous opinions (and
historical documents)
That's what they're supposed to do.
Doctrines are upheld by the threads of continuity that run through
cases.
The use of taxpayer money to fund religious instruction is prohibited.
The use of taxpayer money to aid ALL students in COMMON issues (like
transportaton ) IS constitutional
That's the gist of the Decision
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
