David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 22:28:50 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132813730.503213.206690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

David Jensen wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 11:29:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1132774147.928620.102980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:

On 22 Nov 2005 22:44:10 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

...

That's no answer. Your "doctrine" strawman is no substitute for
Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the Constitution:

Jefferson has NO legal relevancy, Freddie.

NONE ! !

If Jefferson never existed, the underlying philosophy
underpinning the separation of religion and government
would still be valid.

Can't handle it, can you?

Again, the outcome-driven activist Everson Justices painted themselves
into a corner with respect to unquestioningly grabbing anything that
they could get their hands on to justify their unconstitutional,
anti-religious expression interpretation of the establishment clause.

You still haven't established that any of your assertions are correct.
Let's start with your claim that the Court was outcome-driven.

Show us the evidence.

Justice Jackson reflected his suspicions concerning some
sleight-of-hand his colleagues were up to in Everson as evidenced by
the following:

"The Court's opinion marshals every argument in favor of state aid and
puts the case in its most favorable light, but much of its reasoning
confirms my conclusions that there are no good grounds upon which to
support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the
opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church
from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding
support to their commingling in educational matters. The case which
irresistibly comes to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of
Julia who, according to Byron's reports, 'whispering 'I will ne'er
consent,'- consented.'" -- Justice Jackson, Everson v. Board of Ewing
TP, 1947.

Let's see if I have this right. The Court decides that state funds can
be used for transportation of children to religious schools. Justice
Jackson in dissent finds that to be an impermissible violation of the
First Amendment.

Where are you coming from? :^(

What is your problem with respect to not being able to accept what's
being put in your face? You're in denial.

Forget the specifics of the Everson case; transportation of children is
not the only thing that Justice Jackson was concerned about. Justice
Jackson was also concerned about what was evidently going on behind
closed doors in the Supreme Court. Again, Jackson was concerned about
the unconstitutional undertones of the case which emphasized absolute
church-state separation:

"In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and
uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant
with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in
educational matters." -- Justice Jackson, Everson v. Board of Ewing TP,
1947.

That, for you, is evidence that the court is "grabbing
anything that they could get their hands on to justify their
unconstitutional, anti-religious expression interpretation of the
establishment clause." I don't see how the conclusion comes from the
original information.

How stubborn can you get? The corrupt Justices were seemingly waiting
for the next religious related case to come through the door so they
could put their mischief into action. When such a case came, the
Everson case, they seized their opportunity to unlawfully "amended" the
establishment clause to mean absolute church-state separation by means
of a precedent setting-opinion, the actual issue of the case merely
being camouflage for their main goal.

However, in their haste to cherry-pick Court precedents and amendments
that could be twisted to suggest absolute church-state separation, the
Everson Justices slipped up by overlooking that aspects of Jefferson's
"wall of separation" and the 14th contradicted each other. As I've
mentioned elsewhere, the Everson Court ended up unwittingly painting
itself into a corner with respect to having to defend the absurdity
that the 14th took away powers from the States, powers that these same
Justices also claimed (Jefferson's wall of separation) that the States
never had in the first place.

If the slimeball Justices had noted the discrepancy between Jefferson's
words and the 14th in the Everson opinion then we wouldn't be here
discussing the issue. However, such a glaring oversight is so
unprofessional that it brings us back to Justice Jackson's words which
imply a judicial scandal concerning the unlawful abridgement of the
full enjoyment of our religious freedoms.

Presuming that justice was served, you are ignoring that it doesn't
matter how the case was decided. Given the above extract,
anti-religious expression Justices essentially used the case to
camoflauge the real outcome, their real agenda, which was to unlawfully
legislate absolute church-state separation from the bench. To do this,
the Court essentially bypassed Article V of the Constitution by using a
case precedent to officially, but unconstitutionally, strain the basic,
common sense interpretation of the establishment clause as opposed to
constitutional amendment by the States.

You'll have to show me how that happened. Your assertions don't seem to
have had any evidence behind them. I'm particularly intrigued by your
appeal to common sense here. Where did that come from.

Your anti-religious expression agenda simply cannot afford for what I'm
saying to make sense.

Regarding my emphasis on common sense with
respect to interpreting the Constitution, for the nth time this year,
from Jefferson:

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

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

The activist Court's "new and improved" but *unconstitutional*
interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion is a
prime example of an unconstitutional "metaphysical subtly," as
Jefferson put it, that Jefferson was warning about.

Once you have done that, but only after you have done that, can we
discuss the next step in the process.

I don't think you give a rip in the first place. Given that you are
choosing to ignore the common sense interpretations of key amendments
anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if you want to hide behind process in
order to camouflage your separationist, atheist agenda just like the
Justices in the Everson case did.

Ah, does common sense mean 'fits my prejudgement about what the outcome
should be'?

Again, self-deceiving separationists, atheists and activist Justices
simply cannot afford common sense interpretations of the religious
aspects of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments.

I do care, I just don't accept your unsupported assertions.

Again, you're denying your basic reading skills and wanting every to
bow down to the "wisdom" of corrupt Justices because they are telling
you what you want to hear concerning their twisted, anti-religious
expression interpretations of relevant constitutional amendments.