| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2007 08:02:19 AM |
| Object: |
Clarence Thomas’s Theocratic Vision |
Supremely Radical: Analyzing Clarence Thomas’s Theocratic Vision
http://blog.au.org/2007/10/10/supremely-radical-analyzing-clarence-thomass-theocratic-vision/
October 10th 2007
The First Amendment Center on Monday released a superb collection of essays
analyzing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s treatment of First
Amendment law. The essays by leading constitutional law scholars and
attorneys delve into Thomas’s interpretation of the Amendment in general
and of free speech and church-state separation in particular.
Professor Erwin Chemerinsky’s foreword to the collection is a brutally
honest assessment of Justice Thomas’s judicial temperament. He asserts,
“Justice Thomas is the most radical member of the current Supreme Court and
likely one of the most radical justices in history in his desire to
overrule precedent and dramatically change the law.
“Virtually every essay describes an area,” the professor writes, “where
Justice Thomas, in concurring or dissenting opinions, has urged major
departures from prior decision and doctrines.”
Chemerinsky and his colleagues point to three characteristics that explain
Thomas’s radicalism. The first and most disturbing is his willingness to
ignore stare decisis. One author compliments the justice’s candid opinions,
but notes that his propensity to “proudly drive a stake through [a
disagreeable precedent’s] heart until it is cold and dead in the ground”
leads to instability and uncertainty in the law.
Another author discusses Thomas’s preference for rigid “bright-line” rules
that leave little room for accommodation and compromise.
Finally, Thomas relies heavily on his interpretation of 18th-century
American law and society when determining the current scope of the First
Amendment. He is “willing to adhere to his originialist philosophy,”
Chemerinsky notes, “even when it means dramatic changes in the law.”
Although speech (through technology) and religion (through immigration) are
two areas that have evolved the most in the past two centuries, we see this
philosophy come through especially in the justice’s decisions on free
speech and religious liberty.
These characteristics whether combined or alone, have devastating
consequences for religious freedom. Indeed, Chemerinsky notes that “[t]he
most radical change is his view that state and local governments do not
need to comply with the establishment clause. Under this idea, there
literally could be an official religion of a state, required prayer in
schools, and unlimited government aid to religious institutions provided
state law permitted it. That is, for Justice Thomas nothing in the First
Amendment would prohibit such a religious regime.”
It’s difficult for us to imagine today an America with 50 different state
religions, 50 different statutes compelling religious worship or financial
aid, and 50 different religious tests for public office. This isn’t
unimaginable at all for Thomas; in fact, he finds it quite constitutional.
Justice Thomas’s view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause’s restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The answer comes in “Noting the emperor has no clothes:
establishment-clause jurisprudence of Justice Thomas” by John Eastman.
Eastman says “the short version of Justice Thomas’s argument, first
suggested in [Zelman v. Simmons-Harris] and then more fully developed in
[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow] and [Van Orden v. Perry], is
this: The establishment clause is a federalism provision, barring the
establishment of a national church and preventing the federal government
from otherwise interfering with state government decisions about whether,
and how much, to support religious organizations.”
In other words, Thomas does not believe the establishment clause creates a
“liberty” that can be protected from government transgression.
This is a common but wrong-headed position, at odds with 60 years of the
precedent that “judicial restraint” advocates claim to hold so dear. It’s
unlikely the clause would ever be unincorporated, but it’s worth pondering
the consequences, since that’s exactly the promise the Religious Right
wants from future Supreme Court nominees.
I urge you to take the time to read these essays, especially those on free
speech and church-state separation. I hope you all will use the message
boards to discuss what religious liberty would look like if Thomas’s
interpretation of the First Amendment got four more votes.
By Lauren Smith
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
15 Oct 2007 02:09:25 AM |
|
|
Just so everybody's aware of what's going on, FDR essentially got the
Supreme Court to ignore the 10th A. so that the Court would give the
green light to his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending
programs. Then, as a consequence of having the political license to
ignore the 10th A., renegade, anti-religious expression justices then
unconsitutionally limited our religious freedoms. More specifically...
Justice Owen Roberts rewrote constitutional history in the Cantwell v.
Connecticut opinion by writing the following.
"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." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v.
State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c
The problem with Roberts' 10th A.-ignoring statement concerning state
powers to address religious issues is that John Bingham, the main
author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified that the 14th A. was
not intended to take away any state's right. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States NO
rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham,
Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
"NO right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States
should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional
Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the
rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of
government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham,
Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
And just as Justice Roberts' had ignored the 10th A. protected powers
of the states, misrepresenting John Bingham's ideas about state
powers, Justice Black later used Roberts' license to ignore the 10th
A., misrepresenting Thomas Jefferson's ideas concerning c&s
separation. This is because, regardless that Black wanted everybody to
think that Jefforson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the
establishment clause was supposed to be applied to the states,
Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and
10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address
religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson
did so at least three times. Again, see for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also
expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that
'the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively or to the people': and that no power over the freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated
to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were
reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general
government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe
the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the
Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State
or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious
societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the
provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or
free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the
states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no
power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in
religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It
must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human
authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
1st Amendment: 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.
10th Amendment: 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.
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation
of the establishment clause, Black actually quoted probably the worst
possible person to help justify his dirty work.
Are we having fun yet?
As a side note, consider that the 10th A. is not referenced in either
the Cantwell or Everson opinions where the "good" justices wrote their
precedent-setting opinions.
The people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread
judicial corruption, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers
of the states to address religious issues is concerned. The people
need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding
their oaths to defend the Constitution to resign from their jobs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
15 Oct 2007 07:19:35 AM |
|
|
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Just so everybody's aware of what's going on, FDR essentially got the
Supreme Court to ignore the 10th A.
FDR had nothing to do with it. The application of the 14th to 1st
amendment rights predates FDR.
so that the Court would give the
green light to his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending
programs. Then, as a consequence of having the political license to
ignore the 10th A., renegade, anti-religious expression justices then
unconsitutionally limited our religious freedoms.
Nobody has limited your religious freedom. States powers have been
limited.
The problem with Roberts' 10th A.-ignoring statement concerning state
powers to address religious issues is that John Bingham, the main
author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified that the 14th A. was
not intended to take away any state's right. See for yourself.
Since states have no rights, only powers, such a statement is
meaningless.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States NO
rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham,
Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
"NO right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States
should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional
Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the
rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of
government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham,
Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
But of course in the same text he set out that he did intend to set
new limits on the powers of the state - see paragraph 2 on the image
in the last cited URL. "I had read - and that is what induced me to
attempt to impose by constitutional amendment new limitations of the
power of the States ... [he then cited what he had read as being
Marshall's opinion in Barron vs Baltimore which said explicitly that
the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States]"
And he further set forth explicitly that it was the first 8 amendments
to the constitution (which he quoted in full) that specified the
privileges and immunities, which he wanted the power of the states to
infringe removed (last full paragraph of the second column in the last
cited URL):
"These eight articles I have shown never were limits on the powers of
the states, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."
He further made it clear that he intended to remove state powers to
restrict religious activity (3rd column of same cite, half way down)
by saying that the 14th forbade Georgia from sending men to the
penitentiary, as it had before the 14th, for teaching the New
Testament to Indians)
And just as Justice Roberts' had ignored the 10th A. protected powers
of the states, misrepresenting John Bingham's ideas about state
powers,
You seem to be the one misrepresenting his ideas.
Justice Black later used Roberts' license to ignore the 10th
A., misrepresenting Thomas Jefferson's ideas concerning c&s
separation.
Thomas Jefferson's ideas were irrelevant; they were included as a
short sound-bite rephrasing of the longer definition of the 1st
amendment that had just preceded the quote of TJ, a definition which
had been based on constitutional history, and not on TJ.
Are we having fun yet?
Well, I just looked up ONE of your cites, and determined you were
lying again.
I guess that counts as fun.
As a side note, consider that the 10th A. is not referenced in either
the Cantwell or Everson opinions where the "good" justices wrote their
precedent-setting opinions.
The 10th amendment is not relevant, since the 14th amendment would
have overridden any application of it.
The people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread
judicial corruption,
The only corruption is in your mind.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SueDoeCyAnts" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
17 Oct 2007 07:03:47 AM |
|
|
on Mon 15 Oct 2007 12:09:25a
fred <clarma1@gmail.com> posted
in news:1192432165.523777.123380@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Just so everybody's aware of what's going on, FDR essentially
got the Supreme Court to ignore the 10th A. so that the Court
would give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized
federal spending programs. Then, as a consequence of having the
political license to ignore the 10th A., renegade,
anti-religious expression justices then unconsitutionally
limited our religious freedoms. More specifically...
What is noticeably absent in your analysis are citations to any
Supreme Court Cases which were predominately grounded in the 10th
amendment.
Your assertion:
"FDR essentially got the Supreme Court to ignore the 10th"
carries with it the implied notion that the 10th Amendment had not
previously been ignored by the Court. Yet I am not aware of any
significant body of Supreme Court Case law which limited the reach
of the Federal Government using the 10th Amendment as
justification. Please offer illumination with citations.
You are overstating the intent of the 10th Amendment in an effort
to hobble the Federal government in an unconstituional manner, so
that you can impose your own prejudices upon the citizenry, and
thereby steal the people's liberty.
A citation from Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution"
is appropriate as a reply:
-------------------------------------
This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any
just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the
constitution. Being an instrument of limited and
enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is
not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state
authorities, if invested by their constitutions of
government respectively in them; and if not so invested,
it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their
residuary sovereignty. When this amendment was before
congress, a proposition was moved, to insert the word
"expressly" before "delegated," so as to read "the
powers not expressly delegated to the United States by
the constitution," &c. On that occasion it was remarked,
that it is impossible to confine a government to the
exercise of express powers. There must necessarily be
admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution
descended to the most minute details. It is a general
principle, that all corporate bodies possess all powers
incident to a corporate capacity, without being
absolutely expressed. The motion was accordingly
negatived.
[. . .]
It is plain, therefore, that it could not have been the
intention of the framers of this amendment to give it
effect, as an abridgment of any of the powers granted
under the constitution, whether they are express or
implied, direct or incidental. Its sole design is to
exclude any interpretation, by which other powers should
be assumed beyond those, which are granted. All that are
granted in the original instrument, whether express or
implied, whether direct or incidental, are left in their
original state. All powers not delegated, (not all
powers not expressly delegated,) and not prohibited, are
reserved. The attempts, then, which have been made from
time to time, to force upon this language an abridging,
or restrictive influence, are utterly unfounded in any
just rules of interpreting the words, or the sense of
the instrument. Stripped of the ingenious disguises, in
which they are clothed, they are neither more nor less,
than attempts to foist into the text the word
"expressly;" to qualify, what is general, and obscure,
what is clear, and defined. They make the sense of the
passage bend to the wishes and prejudices of the
interpreter; and employ criticism to support a theory,
and not to guide it.
Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution"
Vol 3: paragraphs 1900&1901, 1833
-------------------------------------
Something else that you artfully escaped mentioning is that even
if you are correct, and that the religious establishment
prohibition in the 1st Amendment cannot be applied to the states,
most, if not all of the individual states have similar, or
stronger expressed prohibitions that bar their institution of
religious establishments.
An honest interpretation of the 10th Amendment using the
justifications that you are claiming here, would not result in
this being reserved to the individual states, but instead where it
rightfully belongs, in possession by each and every human, as a
sovereign of their own belief in the Power of the Creative Force.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 09:51:50 AM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 10:19:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321630@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 11:45:20 AM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
15 Oct 2007 12:14:46 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
The 1st amendment also identifies some rights, which the Congressional
restriction protects (since no branch of government is supposed to be
allowed to anything without Congress enabling it by law and
appropriation). The 14th amendment then says that states cannot
violate any rights that the Constitution protects.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 11:58:07 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
Even Thomas doesn't go that far into looney land.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 01:18:58 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not
apply to state and local governments leads one to question his
view of the establishment clause's restraint on federal power.
Does he agree with the radically conservative position that the
establishment clause only forbids the establishment of a national
religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
Are you in fucking grade school?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 01:36:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:45:20 -0700, Michael Ejercito wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism Michael Ejercito
<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply
to state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree
with the radically conservative position that the establishment
clause only forbids the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
And never mind that little dust up called "the Civil War"...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The larger the mob, the harder the test....when the
field is nationwide...then all the odds are on the man
who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--
the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the
notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men.
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
“We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their
heart's desire at last, and the White House will be
adorned by a downright moron.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 11:57:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:45:20 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192293920.518834.98950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
You still ignore the rest of the Constitution and the amendments.
Your opinion about the Constitution doesn't really matter since the
Supreme Court has already said you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 01:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:45:20 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192293920.518834.98...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
You still ignore the rest of the Constitution and the amendments.
So then other amendments, not the first, would apply to state and
local governments.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
15 Oct 2007 04:49:31 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, buckeye-elo wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
Michael
In the past Bob LeChevalier has posted primary source documentation making
it very clear that all levels of govt. were meant, not just Congress.
James Madison listed the greatest threats to freedon, individual rights,
etc. as the people themselves, state government and the national
government
You might find the following of help
Warnings and other comments by a variety of men of the founding period and
after(1780 -1833, 1992, 1999)
* Dangers and Comments on "We the People;" Factions, Including
Religious Sects, & Denominations; Local & State Governments; Majority v.
Minority; Common Law and Other Things of Importance
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
15 Oct 2007 05:04:04 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
:|> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:45:20 -0700, in alt.atheism
:|> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
:|> <1192293920.518834.98...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
:|> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
:|> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
:|> >> <1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
:|>
:|> >> >On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
:|> >> >> Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
:|> >> >> state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
:|> >> >> establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
:|> >> >> radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
:|> >> >> the establishment of a national religion?
:|> >> > The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
:|>
:|> >> How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
:|> > The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
:|> >only Congress.
:|>
:|> You still ignore the rest of the Constitution and the amendments.
:|>
:| So then other amendments, not the first, would apply to state and
:|local governments.
:|
:|
:| Michael
As originally written the 10 Articles that were passed by the several
states applied to the national govt. only.
However, more than one anti rat (anti-federalist) were very aware of the
following and were worried about it.
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
[excerpt]
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[end excerpt]
Constitutional law never evolved in such a way that any of the 10 Articles
we come to call the BORS were applied against the states even though
language was in that document that could be viewed as permitting it.
Instead Con Law evolved in that direction via the 14th Amendment.
Just something to keep in mind
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 03:30:30 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
You still ignore the rest of the Constitution and the amendments.
So then other amendments, not the first, would apply to state and
local governments.
They all apply to every level of government and to all citizens. Read up on
the 14th Amendment.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sep_federal.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Clarence Thomas's Theocratic Vision |
13 Oct 2007 02:09:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:47:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192301222.398359.289220@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 9:57 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:45:20 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192293920.518834.98...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 8:19 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:51:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1192287110.343142.321...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 6:02 am, wrote:
Justice Thomas's view that the establishment clause should not apply to
state and local governments leads one to question his view of the
establishment clause's restraint on federal power. Does he agree with the
radically conservative position that the establishment clause only forbids
the establishment of a national religion?
The First Amendment starts with "CONGRESS shall make no law..."
How carefully you ignore the other amendments.
The First Amendment clearly places restrictions on Congress, and
only Congress.
You still ignore the rest of the Constitution and the amendments.
So then other amendments, not the first, would apply to state and
local governments.
Yes.
I guess you failed civics in high school.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
