Sociology > Education > Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution"
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"fred" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2005 05:25:58 PM |
| Object: |
Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution".
This bottom line is that people who attack our freedom of religious
expression often can't point to anything specific in the Constitution
to prove that the Constitution is being violated. They have to resort
to strawman generalizations to pull the wool over everybody's eyes.
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens. So the states do have the
constitutional power to authorize public schools to lead classroom
discussions on issues like the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example. However, I disagree with
Jefferson that religion classes should be mandatory:
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
The 14th Amendment requires that state laws that authorize religious
theme classes in the public schools make such classes optional.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
03 Oct 2005 04:43:08 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution".
:|This bottom line is that people who attack our freedom of religious
:|expression often can't point to anything specific in the Constitution
:|to prove that the Constitution is being violated. They have to resort
:|to strawman generalizations to pull the wool over everybody's eyes.
LOL
Gee guy, if you go here you will find charts and at the top pf the chart
you will fidn
Note: in the final column, "S" designates a ruling favoring separationism,
"A" designates a ruling favoring a non-preferentialist or accomodationist
position, and "N" designates a neutral ruling.
Date Case Vote Issue Raised Holding/Rationale S/P/N
That makes it pretty specific
Also you can click on the case name and it will take you to the actual
court opinion
Apparently you don't understand the elements of a court case.
I will give you just one example from one cass
YEAR
1963
CASE
Abington v. Schemmp, 374 U.S. 203 - PA. Statute required that 10 versus
from the Bible be read in Public Schools; Md. allowed for daily bible
reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools.
VOTE
8:1
LEGAL ISSUE RAISED
Does the reading of Bible verses and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in
public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
HOLDING/REAIONALE
The Court found that neither program had a secular purpose but both had the
primary effect of advancing religion. Under the "secular purpose" and
"primary effect" tests, The Court found that both states' plans violated
the Establishment Clause.
S/P/N
S
Court cases are pretty specfic
Important Establishment Clause Cases decided by the U. S. Supreme Court
* Introduction
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tableidx.htm
* Cases from 1899 to 1970
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table1.htm
* Cases from 1971 to 1977
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table2.htm
* Cases from 1978 to present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table3.htm
* Recently in the Courts (2000-Present)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rcntcass.htm
**************************************************************
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: "Patrick Vallely" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
02 Oct 2005 06:34:44 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "personal federal
rights." Actually *reading* it would reveal it in fact says that no
state may violate a citizens "privileges or immunities." The "personal
federal rights" language is a distortion intended to artificially narrow
exactly what "privielges" and "immunities" the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits the states from violating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
02 Oct 2005 07:31:30 PM |
|
|
Patrick Vallely wrote:
fred wrote:
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "personal federal
rights." Actually *reading* it would reveal it in fact says that no
state may violate a citizens "privileges or immunities." The "personal
federal rights" language is a distortion intended to artificially narrow
exactly what "privielges" and "immunities" the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits the states from violating.
The bottom line is that you are actually trying to broaden the term
"priviledges or immunities" so you can force your meaningless "freedom
from laws that respect an establishment of religion" into the 14th
Amendment.
You are arguing that the 14th Amendment says that it is illegal for the
states to write laws respecting an establishment of religion. But this
is wrong because the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the fact that
the 10th Amendment automatically delegated the power to legislate
religion uniquely to the states since the 1st Amendment prohibited this
power only to the federal government. This is evidenced by the fact
that the 14th Amendment doesn't even reference the 10th Amendment.
What the 14 Amendment really does is prohibit states from writing
religious laws in a way that a law abridges the federal rights of US
citizens. So the 1st and 10th Amendments gives the states the power to
write laws that officially recognize Christmas and Easter, for example.
But since the 14th Amendment prohibits such laws from abridging the
federal rights of US citizens, everybody can essentially ignore such
state holidays if they so desire.
Here's section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"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."
Contrary to your play with words about "priviledges and immunities" vs.
personal rights, the Gideon v. Wainwright opinion, one of the 1st
Supreme Court cases to examine 14th Amendment issues, reasonably
indicates that personal federal rights were the main issue. For
example:
"Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have
the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair
trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of
counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455
, overruled. Pp. 336-345." --Gideon v. Wainwright 1963.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid See" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
02 Oct 2005 08:18:54 PM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128299490.619236.192830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Patrick Vallely wrote:
fred wrote:
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "personal federal
rights." Actually *reading* it would reveal it in fact says that no
state may violate a citizens "privileges or immunities." The "personal
federal rights" language is a distortion intended to artificially narrow
exactly what "privielges" and "immunities" the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits the states from violating.
The bottom line is that you are actually trying to broaden the term
"priviledges or immunities" so you can force your meaningless "freedom
from laws that respect an establishment of religion" into the 14th
Amendment.
You are arguing that the 14th Amendment says that it is illegal for the
states to write laws respecting an establishment of religion. But this
is wrong because the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the fact that
the 10th Amendment automatically delegated the power to legislate
religion uniquely to the states since the 1st Amendment prohibited this
power only to the federal government. This is evidenced by the fact
that the 14th Amendment doesn't even reference the 10th Amendment.
What the 14 Amendment really does is prohibit states from writing
religious laws in a way that a law abridges the federal rights of US
citizens. So the 1st and 10th Amendments gives the states the power to
write laws that officially recognize Christmas and Easter, for example.
But since the 14th Amendment prohibits such laws from abridging the
federal rights of US citizens, everybody can essentially ignore such
state holidays if they so desire.
Here's section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"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."
Contrary to your play with words about "priviledges and immunities" vs.
personal rights, the Gideon v. Wainwright opinion, one of the 1st
Supreme Court cases to examine 14th Amendment issues, reasonably
indicates that personal federal rights were the main issue. For
example:
"Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have
the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair
trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of
counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455
, overruled. Pp. 336-345." --Gideon v. Wainwright 1963.
I don't get your point, Fred. Simply put, the 1st
amendment places restrictions upon Congress
as to what laws can be passed or enforced, while
the 14th goes one further by restricting all States
from overriding the federal prohibitions of the 1st.
That the 1st prohibits religious laws (or a state
religion, depending whether one interprets the
word "establishment" as meaning an action, or
as an entity) makes it's pretty difficult to spin away
the separation of religion and the State (Fed).
Is this what you had in mind?
~S
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
03 Oct 2005 04:47:14 AM |
|
|
"Sid See" <sidsee@faux.not> wrote:
:|I don't get your point, Fred.
Fred has no point except to be a troll and bot
Fred rarely ever actually responds to others. He name calls, he labels
others He offers Alan Keyes as the only authority that matters trumping
courts, etc. He offers highly selective Jefferson quotes as the only
historical authority that matters. He spins the Tenth Amendment totally
overlooking primary source documentation that the tenth Amendment was
deliberately weakened and turned into basically window dressing
He plays games with the 14th Amendment, but that is fashionable now.
The Radical Religious Right is pushing big time to separate the
Establishment Clause from application against the states.
Every major fundamentalist/dominionist/reconstructionist/theocratic
spokesman, source, organization, site is uniformly pushing that party line,
especially since for the first time in history they have for certain one
and maybe at least two USSC justices supporting such a removal of the
Establishment Clause from application against the states.
Fred is a troll repeating the same mantras to anyone and everyone over and
over and over again.
He has been doing there in these particular newsgroups since July past
(minus a brief absence from end of August to a week or ten days ago)
and will contiue to do so as long as people encourage him by replying to
him.
**************************************************************
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: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
03 Oct 2005 12:48:02 AM |
|
|
Sid See wrote:
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128299490.619236.192830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Patrick Vallely wrote:
fred wrote:
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "personal federal
rights." Actually *reading* it would reveal it in fact says that no
state may violate a citizens "privileges or immunities." The "personal
federal rights" language is a distortion intended to artificially narrow
exactly what "privielges" and "immunities" the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits the states from violating.
The bottom line is that you are actually trying to broaden the term
"priviledges or immunities" so you can force your meaningless "freedom
from laws that respect an establishment of religion" into the 14th
Amendment.
You are arguing that the 14th Amendment says that it is illegal for the
states to write laws respecting an establishment of religion. But this
is wrong because the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the fact that
the 10th Amendment automatically delegated the power to legislate
religion uniquely to the states since the 1st Amendment prohibited this
power only to the federal government. This is evidenced by the fact
that the 14th Amendment doesn't even reference the 10th Amendment.
What the 14 Amendment really does is prohibit states from writing
religious laws in a way that a law abridges the federal rights of US
citizens. So the 1st and 10th Amendments gives the states the power to
write laws that officially recognize Christmas and Easter, for example.
But since the 14th Amendment prohibits such laws from abridging the
federal rights of US citizens, everybody can essentially ignore such
state holidays if they so desire.
Here's section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
"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."
Contrary to your play with words about "priviledges and immunities" vs.
personal rights, the Gideon v. Wainwright opinion, one of the 1st
Supreme Court cases to examine 14th Amendment issues, reasonably
indicates that personal federal rights were the main issue. For
example:
"Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have
the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair
trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of
counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455
, overruled. Pp. 336-345." --Gideon v. Wainwright 1963.
I don't get your point, Fred. Simply put, the 1st
amendment places restrictions upon Congress
as to what laws can be passed or enforced, while
the 14th goes one further by restricting all States
from overriding the federal prohibitions of the 1st.
You've got the wires crossed. The 14th Amendment doesn't even address
the fact that the 1st and 10th Amendment divides government powers
between the federal and state governments. This is evidenced by the
fact that the 14th Amnedment doesn't mention the 10th Amendment at all.
Again, unlike the 1st Amendment which explicitly states the kinds of
laws that Congress is prohibited from making, religious laws being a
good example, the 14th Amendment puts only a general restriction on all
the laws that the states can make. This general restriction is that no
state can make a law which abridges the federal rights of US citizens.
Otherwise, the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about prohibiting
the states from using any of their powers at all like 1st Amendment
does with the federal government. Also consider that the 14th
Amendment would have needed to repeal the 10th Amendment, just as the
21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, to stop the 10th Amendment
from automatically delegating unique powers to the states.
That the 1st prohibits religious laws (or a state
religion, depending whether one interprets the
word "establishment" as meaning an action, or
as an entity) makes it's pretty difficult to spin away
the separation of religion and the State (Fed).
Is this what you had in mind?
No. Consider that before the 14th Amendment was made, some states
abused their powers by abridging the federal rights of US citizens.
This abuse of powers got so bad that it culminated with the Civil War.
I suspect that people whose federal rights were being abused would have
been quite happy if the Supreme Court would have discovered some hidden
meaning in the 1st Amendment which would stop certain states from
abusing personal federal rights. But the post Civil War 14th Amendment
was eventually made to stop the states from abusing their powers.
But what's really wierd is that the Supreme Court essentially time
warped back to the days before the Civil War with respect to the
Everson opinion which was made in 1947. Justice Black seems to have
forced a pre-Civil War, politically correct interpretation of the 1st
Amendment into the establishment clause and likewise forced meaning
into the 14th Amendment to cover his tracks. He twisted the meaning of
the establishment clause as if 14th Amendment hadn't yet been written.
Justice Black essentially ignored basic reading skills and lied about
the establishment clause by claiming that its prohibitions on federal
government powers also applied to the states:
"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." --Everson v Board 1947
Justice Black and his cohorts evidently regarded the 10th Amendment as
a lose canon with respect to justifying their baloney about the
establishment clause. As I indicated before, this is evidenced by the
fact that the Everson opinion completely ignores 10th Amendment,
essentially sweeping it under the carpet.
~S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid See" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
03 Oct 2005 01:33:36 PM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128318482.673768.301440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Sid See wrote:
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128299490.619236.192830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snipped for bandwidth>
I don't get your point, Fred. Simply put, the 1st
amendment places restrictions upon Congress
as to what laws can be passed or enforced, while
the 14th goes one further by restricting all States
from overriding the federal prohibitions of the 1st.
You've got the wires crossed. The 14th Amendment doesn't even address
the fact that the 1st and 10th Amendment divides government powers
between the federal and state governments.
I don't know what you mean by crossed...
The 1st sets limits on laws that Congress
can act upon-- there are no references
to a division of governmental powers being
divided between State and Federal.
The 10th simply states "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." In other
words "all is retained which has not been
surrendered". I can't see how one could
interpret this as a division of powers as
you seem to be implying.
This is evidenced by the
fact that the 14th Amnedment doesn't mention the 10th Amendment at all.
Again, unlike the 1st Amendment which explicitly states the kinds of
laws that Congress is prohibited from making, religious laws being a
good example, the 14th Amendment puts only a general restriction on all
the laws that the states can make. This general restriction is that no
state can make a law which abridges the federal rights of US citizens.
In other words, the States cannot make
laws that are federally prohibited by the 1st.
Otherwise, the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about prohibiting
the states from using any of their powers at all like 1st Amendment
does with the federal government.
No need... it still prohibits the States from
making law that is federally prohibited by
the 1st.
The salient portion of section 1 states:
"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."
The intent is quite clear.
Also consider that the 14th
Amendment would have needed to repeal the 10th Amendment, just as the
21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, to stop the 10th Amendment
from automatically delegating unique powers to the states.
That the 1st prohibits religious laws (or a state
religion, depending whether one interprets the
word "establishment" as meaning an action, or
as an entity) makes it's pretty difficult to spin away
the separation of religion and the State (Fed).
Is this what you had in mind?
No. Consider that before the 14th Amendment was made, some states
abused their powers by abridging the federal rights of US citizens.
This abuse of powers got so bad that it culminated with the Civil War.
I suspect that people whose federal rights were being abused would have
been quite happy if the Supreme Court would have discovered some hidden
meaning in the 1st Amendment which would stop certain states from
abusing personal federal rights. But the post Civil War 14th Amendment
was eventually made to stop the states from abusing their powers.
But what's really wierd is that the Supreme Court essentially time
warped back to the days before the Civil War with respect to the
Everson opinion which was made in 1947. Justice Black seems to have
forced a pre-Civil War, politically correct interpretation of the 1st
Amendment into the establishment clause and likewise forced meaning
into the 14th Amendment to cover his tracks. He twisted the meaning of
the establishment clause as if 14th Amendment hadn't yet been written.
Justice Black essentially ignored basic reading skills and lied about
the establishment clause by claiming that its prohibitions on federal
government powers also applied to the states:
"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 form 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." --Everson v Board 1947
Justice Black and his cohorts evidently regarded the 10th Amendment as
a lose canon with respect to justifying their baloney about the
establishment clause. As I indicated before, this is evidenced by the
fact that the Everson opinion completely ignores 10th Amendment,
essentially sweeping it under the carpet.
Now I see... apparently what you have in
mind is to convince us Black did an
injustice by ruling the States did not have
the liberty of violating citizens federal rights
-- in this case,1st amendment rights in
regards to the establishment clause-- in
concert with the intent of the 14th.
It seem to me, you're grasping at straws in
hopes of finding a loophole (convoluting
the intent of the 10th) that would allow
States to make religious laws.
Shame on you-- that's so un-American!
And anti-Christian as well, I might add.
~S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Vallely" |
|
| Title: Re: Beware of generalizations like "because it violates the Constitution" |
02 Oct 2005 08:26:35 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Patrick Vallely wrote:
fred wrote:
The bottom line is that an examination of the 1st, 10th and 14th
Amendments will show you that the 14th Amendment prohibits the states
from using their power to legislate religion to abridge our personal
federal rights as US citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "personal federal
rights." Actually *reading* it would reveal it in fact says that no
state may violate a citizens "privileges or immunities." The "personal
federal rights" language is a distortion intended to artificially narrow
exactly what "privielges" and "immunities" the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits the states from violating.
The bottom line is that you are actually trying to broaden the term
"priviledges or immunities" so you can force your meaningless "freedom
from laws that respect an establishment of religion" into the 14th
Amendment.
You are arguing that the 14th Amendment says that it is illegal for the
states to write laws respecting an establishment of religion. But this
is wrong because the 14th Amendment did nothing to change the fact that
the 10th Amendment automatically delegated the power to legislate
religion uniquely to the states since the 1st Amendment prohibited this
power only to the federal government. This is evidenced by the fact
that the 14th Amendment doesn't even reference the 10th Amendment.
But you contradict yourself again. Each time I bring up speech you call
me a brainwashed atheist and run away. But I'll do it again anyway:
I asked you: "Because the First Amendment prohibits the federal
government from passing any law that abridges free speech, does the
Tenth Amendment preserve the power of the states to abridge free speech?"
You said: "Yes."
You say that the 14th Amendment didn't change how the First and Tenth
Amendments interact, then in the next breath you'll tell me that a state
law abridging free speech violates the Fourteenth Amendment. So, how
could the Fourteenth Amendment change the restrictions on states for
speech, but not for religion? How do you justify this distinction,
perhaps using words actually found in the amendments (not "personal
freedom" or "personal action")?
What the 14 Amendment really does is prohibit states from writing
religious laws in a way that a law abridges the federal rights of US
citizens. So the 1st and 10th Amendments gives the states the power to
write laws that officially recognize Christmas and Easter, for example.
The First and Tenth Amendments do not "give" power. State power
preexists the Constitution and the Constitution (prior to the Fourteenth
Amendment) only limited state power in minor ways (ie ex post facto,
etc). All the First Amendment did was prohibit Congress from enacting
laws with certain effects (the establishment of religion, abridging of
free speech, etc). All the Tenth Amendment did was to recognize that
because the federal government is one of delegated powers, those powers
not delegated to the federal government, *and not prohibited to the
states by the Constitution*, remain with the states.
Contrary to your play with words about "priviledges and immunities" vs.
personal rights, the Gideon v. Wainwright opinion, one of the 1st
Supreme Court cases to examine 14th Amendment issues, reasonably
indicates that personal federal rights were the main issue. For
example:
"Held: The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have
the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair
trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of
counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455
, overruled. Pp. 336-345." --Gideon v. Wainwright 1963.
First off, this isn't a quote from the majority opinion. Dishonesty as
usual. It's an excerpt from the syllabus for the case. The syllabus
constitutes no part of the official court opinion and has no
precedential value--the majority opinion does. If you cared to actually
quote the *opinion*, you might find this:
"We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for acknowledging that
those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards
of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against
state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
The language the Court uses to describe what the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits is not "personal actions" or "personal freedoms" as you would
want us to believe. It's "fundamental safeguards of liberty." If the
Establishment Clause is not a "fundamental safeguard of liberty." The
framers of the Establishment Clause were clear in that the Clause was
designed to ensure liberty from compelled support of the religion of
another (aka "an establishment").
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
