The states, not the federal government, should have changed the Pledge
fred
addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
the law.
And for the activist judges, atheists and separationists who dread the
idea that the states could then make everybody recite the Pledge,
please put your brains into gear for once. Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment prohibits the states from using their power to address
religion to abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. In
other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from forcing you
to say anything that you don't want to say.
Note that the Supreme Court's politically correct interpretation of the
establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with this. Basic
reading skills tell us that the establishment clause simply helps to
define the kinds of laws that Congress is prohibited from writing.
For more information about how the 1st and 10th Amendments deal with
religion try:
Tightwad
Religion."
It does not say there will be no references to God in Government or in
society outside the Church House!
You infuriating Godless freaks need to move to Arabia to spread "your"
teachings.
fred
Chill out dude.
SHOW ME where I said that there can be no references to God in
government or in society outside the Church House.
Jeff Strickland
"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127948120....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
> addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
> power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
> Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
> incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
> the law.
>
That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
1954.
Cary Kittrell
That's an idea worth a second look. "Arabia", as you term it, currently
offers a number of useful instructional examples of what happens when
religion steers the government. And I'm thinking purely of the stifling,
stultifying effect on lives of their own citizens when I say that.
A good does of secularism is precisely what countries as Saudia
Arabia and Iran could use. Iran, thank no One at all, appears
posed on the brink of a secular backlash, as a new generation
grows up which had no involvement in the Revolution.
-- cary
Patrick Vallely
So let's look at the rights, or as you call them, "clarifications," in
the First Amendment:
Freedom from laws that abridge free speech.
Freedom from laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Freedom from laws that respect an establishment of religion.
Under your logic, the Tenth Amendment guaranteed the states the
authority to "address" these areas. So, just like you say the Tenth
Amendment reserves the power of states to address religion, so must the
Tenth Amendment, by your logic, reserve the power of states to abridge
free speech and prohibit the free exercise of religion. Since the First
Amendment denied Congress these powers, your logic goes, the Tenth
Amendment guaranteed such power to the states.
Certainly, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was nothing in the
federal constitution that prohibited the states from abridging free
speech or respecting an establishment. However, the Fourteenth Amendment
fundamentally altered and added to the restrictions placed on states.
The three freedoms above previously only applicable against the federal
government, after the Fourteenth Amendment, were then (and now)
applicable against the states.
Out of curiousity, given that you refuse to call the restrictions on
power in the First Amendment "rights," instead preferring to call them
"clarifications about Congressional power," perhaps you believe that the
framers of the Bill of Rights used to strong language: perhaps, if your
understanding of the Bill of Rights is correct, we should now call those
first amendments the "Bill of Clarifications."
You say that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from telling you
what to say. At best, you propose a cherry-picking among the three First
Amendment freedoms to be applied against the states. I don't see such a
cherry-picking approach authorized by the Tenth or Fourteenth
amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks in broad terms, and applies
against the states limitations on laws that (1) abridge free speech, (2)
prohibit the free exercise of religion, and (3) respect an establishment.
fred
Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
endorsement. However, the Supreme Court had pulled a fast one with
respect to its twisted interpretation of the establishment clause with
the Everson opinion in 1947. So even then the people didn't understand
that, despite what the Supreme Court claimed about the establishment
clause, the states uniquely had the power to address religion.
Cary Kittrell
Beg pardon? It was a conscious attempt to draw a contrast between
our own -- religious -- society and "godless communism".
-- cary
Jeff Strickland
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:dhfcja$gn7$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
Proclaiming or recognizing that a society is religious is not an endorsement
of religion. Saying that religion is good is not an establishment of
religion.
Jeff Strickland
"Patrick Vallely" <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0EG_e.13433$L15.627@trndny01...
A law that either promotes OR prohibits religion is a law respecting an
establilshment of religion.
Sid9
The people who put
it there thought of it
as religious endorsement
opposing the godless
communists in the
Soviet Union..
That's what it was then,
That's what it is now.
Newdow is right.
Nog
"Tightwad" <Tigh...@plum.net> wrote in message
news:7JF_e.17758$L45....@fe07.lga...
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge
in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of it
being "Indivisible".
GET RID OF IT NOW!
fred
What do you mean MY logic? You are evidently worried about what people
will think. My assertion about the 1st and 10th Amendment is actually
a reasonable conclusion for any self-honest person who reads the 1st
and 10th Amendments.
> authority to "address" these areas. So, just like you say the Tenth
> Amendment reserves the power of states to address religion, so must the
> Tenth Amendment, by your logic, reserve the power of states to abridge
> free speech and prohibit the free exercise of religion. Since the First
> Amendment denied Congress these powers, your logic goes, the Tenth
> Amendment guaranteed such power to the states.
I agree. Before the 14th Amendment made it mandatory for the states to
respect the personal federal freedoms of US citizens, some states
evidently didn't give a damn what the Bill of Rights said. These
states had became tyrant governments complete with bully pulpit
preachers just like England was. Social unrest concerning personal
freedoms came to a boil with the Civil War which is what inspired the
post Civil War 14th Amendment.
>
> Certainly, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was nothing in the
> federal constitution that prohibited the states from abridging free
> speech or respecting an establishment. However, the Fourteenth Amendment
> fundamentally altered and added to the restrictions placed on states.
> The three freedoms above previously only applicable against the federal
> government, after the Fourteenth Amendment, were then (and now)
> applicable against the states.
Why don't you read section 1 of the 14th Amendment for yourself instead
of merely swallowing what your atheist friends have brainwashed you
into thinking it means:
"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."
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment obviously doesn't address how the 1st
and 10th Amendments prohibit or delegate powers between the federal and
state governments. Indeed, while the 14th Amendment reasonably alludes
to the personal freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, the 14th
Amendment doesn't refer to the 10th Amendment at all. So the 14th
Amendment doesn't mean that the states no longer have the power to
address religion. They just can't use that power to force everybody to
recite the Pledge or go to church on Sunday, for example.
>
> Out of curiousity, given that you refuse to call the restrictions on
> power in the First Amendment "rights," instead preferring to call them
> "clarifications about Congressional power," perhaps you believe that the
> framers of the Bill of Rights used to strong language: perhaps, if your
> understanding of the Bill of Rights is correct, we should now call those
> first amendments the "Bill of Clarifications."
Calling the restrictions on the power in the First Amnedment "rights"
is nothing more than an example of the self-dishonest, political
correctness associated with the so-called constitutonal principal of
absolute church and state separation. The bottom line is that you are
evidently an advocate of absolute church and state separation, the
Constitution be damned.
>
> You say that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from telling you
> what to say. At best, you propose a cherry-picking among the three First
> Amendment freedoms to be applied against the states. I don't see such a
> cherry-picking approach authorized by the Tenth or Fourteenth
> amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks in broad terms, and applies
> against the states limitations on laws that (1) abridge free speech, (2)
> prohibit the free exercise of religion, and (3) respect an establishment.
The difference between the limits that the 1st Amendment puts on
Congress and the limits that the 14th Amendment puts on the states is
that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making certain kinds of
laws altogether, most notably laws dealing with religion.
The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, limits all laws that a state can
make. Even though the states have been misled by the Supreme Court
into thinking otherwise, the states have the power to authorize public
schools to lead classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example. But as
I've mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with Jefferson that such 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.
Also, atheists are so fanatical about the Supreme Court's lie about the
establishment clause that atheists can't seem to get a grip that it's
the 14th Amendment, not the estabishment clause, that prohibits schools
from forcing the children of atheists to participate in things like the
Pledge and classroom discussions about creationism, for example.
Gray Shockley
Jeff Strickland wrote
:
> Proclaiming or recognizing that a society
> is religious is not an endorsement
> of religion.
Especially when that "religious society" has the
highest incarceration rate in the world as well
as - iirc - the highest execution rate.
> Saying that religion is good is not
> an establishment of religion.
If it's the government saying it, it's an
establishment of religion.
And how about if a "representative" of a
government says "Religion is evil, bad and silly.
Unless you share my religion which is good. If
you're the same religion I am, you'll get a
[better grade] or [lower taxes] or [visitation
with your jailed husband more often than once a
month].
And, of course, my religion is good but you don't
have to share it unless you want [wink, wink].
On this way is the left hand path.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Swinehood hath no remedy.
- Sidney Lanier
fred
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:31:18 -0500, Tightwad <Tigh...@plum.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The Constitution simply prevents the Government EATABLISHING a "State
> >Religion."
> >It does not say there will be no references to God in Government or in
> >society outside the Church House!
>
> thing. The USSC is the reviewer of law, and the ONLY interpreter of
> the constitution
The only reason that you are saying this about the Supreme Court is
that you probably advocate unconstitutional absolute church and state
separation and so are agreeing with the Supreme Court's lie about the
establishment clause.
Otherwise, regarding the SC's lie about the establishment clause,
Jefferson warned us about judges who usurp legislation:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
>
> Government "establishes" a particular "thing" when it embraces,
> countenances, promotes, agrees with, or in some way, shape or form
> acts favorable toward "something"
Your use of the word government indicates that you don't understand the
model of the government that the Founding Fathers had ultimately
decided on:
"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
>
> When a government of ALL THE PEOPLE "promote" an exclusionary
> religious dogma, that is unconstitutional
Again, you evidently do not understand that the government of ALL THE
PEOPLE is the federal government but not the individual states. You
are ignoring the division of powers between the federal and state
governments that 10th Amendment clearly indicates.
>
> Second, the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment applies
> law to ALL states.
That's as much a twisted interpretation of the 14th Amnedment as the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the establishment clause is. Brace
yourself; 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."
The equal protection clause reasonably means that a given law has to be
interpreted the same way for all people that the law applies to.
Otherwise, a 5 year old cannot claim the equal protection clause in
arguing that he should be issued a driver's license because his dad has
one, for example,
Also, consider that even if a given state were to officially recognize
Christmas day, for example, the 14th Amendment essentially says that
all non-Christians can choose to ignore Christmas if they want to.
fred
Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2005 17:36:20 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1127948120....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
> >> > addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
> >> > power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
> >> > Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
> >> > incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
> >> > the law.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> That view supposes that "under God" is a religious endorsement. Nobody ever
> >> thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
> >> 1954.
> >
> >Although it is wrong to force people to recite the Pledge, I agree that
> >"under God" has no teeth whatsoever with respect to being a religious
> >endorsement.
>
> the judeochristian one.
If I understand you correctly, I agree that this may have been the case
before the 14th Amendment was written. But although I don't understand
how simply declaring that a specific god is the judeochristian one has
any kind of teeth, the 14th Amendment says that non-Christians can
simply ignore their legislatures when they say such things anyway.
fred
Newdow is right that the public schools shouldn't require the children
of atheists to recite the "religious" Pledge. Requiring atheist
children to do such things violates their 14th Amendment protections.
Newdow is flat wrong to assert that the Founding Father's had decided
on absolute church and state separation. Such assertions go against
the 10th Amendment and Jefferson's own words:
fred
Where are you coming from? A law that prohibits an establishment of
religion is prohibiting it, not respecting it.
Patrick Vallely
I've yet to see anyone argue that the states do not have the power to
"address religion," whatever it means to "address" religion. I take
"address" to mean pass any law that somehow involves religion. It's a
very broad word. Of course, states regularly and constitutionally
"address" religion, and this is fine as long as such "addressing" does
not "respect an establishment."
I'm not sure where you have heard this "can't address religion"
argument. Certainly not from me, and certainly not from the Supreme
Court. The Court, in the context of public education, said:
"In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete
without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and
its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be
said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic
qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the
Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular
program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First
Amendment."
This doesn't sound like the Court is saying states cannot "address"
religion--quite the opposite.
>>Out of curiousity, given that you refuse to call the restrictions on
>>power in the First Amendment "rights," instead preferring to call them
>>"clarifications about Congressional power," perhaps you believe that the
>>framers of the Bill of Rights used to strong language: perhaps, if your
>>understanding of the Bill of Rights is correct, we should now call those
>>first amendments the "Bill of Clarifications."
>
>
> Calling the restrictions on the power in the First Amnedment "rights"
> is nothing more than an example of the self-dishonest, political
> correctness associated with the so-called constitutonal principal of
> absolute church and state separation. The bottom line is that you are
> evidently an advocate of absolute church and state separation, the
> Constitution be damned.
So now Madison, and all the other framers and ratifiers of the First
Amendment, are guilty of "self-dishonest, political correctness" for
referring to the first eight amendments as the "Bill of Rights." I'm not
sure why you are so hung up on the word "rights." In the context of all
constitutional law, a "right" is merely something the government may not
do to you. Calling free speech a "right" or calling it a "limitation on
Congressional power" doesn't have that much of an impact on the nature
of the legal question.
>>You say that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from telling you
>>what to say. At best, you propose a cherry-picking among the three First
>>Amendment freedoms to be applied against the states. I don't see such a
>>cherry-picking approach authorized by the Tenth or Fourteenth
>>amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks in broad terms, and applies
>>against the states limitations on laws that (1) abridge free speech, (2)
>>prohibit the free exercise of religion, and (3) respect an establishment.
>
>
> The difference between the limits that the 1st Amendment puts on
> Congress and the limits that the 14th Amendment puts on the states is
> that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making certain kinds of
> laws altogether, most notably laws dealing with religion.
The First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from making laws dealing
with religion. It only prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To say that Congress
cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion is the same as saying we
have a right to free exercise of religion. The whole right/limitation on
government power distinction is without substance.
> The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, limits all laws that a state can
> make. Even though the states have been misled by the Supreme Court
> into thinking otherwise, the states have the power to authorize public
> schools to lead classroom discussions about the pros and cons of
> evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example. But as
> I've mentioned elsewhere, I disagree with Jefferson that such classes
> should be mandatory:
Again, it is *not* the Supreme Court that has done the misleading. See
the above Court quote. The Court explicitly accepts discussions of
religion, even *the study of the bible* in public schools. The "absolute
separation" myth was created by alarmist fear-mongers to mislead the
public into believing the Court has done something that it has not.
> Also, atheists are so fanatical about the Supreme Court's lie about the
> establishment clause that atheists can't seem to get a grip that it's
> the 14th Amendment, not the estabishment clause, that prohibits schools
> from forcing the children of atheists to participate in things like the
> Pledge and classroom discussions about creationism, for example.
There's nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment or the First Amendment that
prohibits classroom discussions of creationism. Further, despite what
alarmist fear-mongers say, the Court has *not* banned creationism from
the shools, but has merely found unconstitutional certain uses of
creationism in the schools that "respect an establishment of religion."
Not all references to creationism respect an establishment.
gaffo
> You infuriating Godless freaks need to move to Arabia to spread "your"
> teachings.
Arabia. Since when is Arabia "Godless"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
You american Taliban just like those Saudi Taliban.
no difference.
--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
gaffo
> In article <7JF_e.17758$L45....@fe07.lga> Tightwad <Tigh...@plum.net> writes:
>
>>The Constitution simply prevents the Government EATABLISHING a "State
>>Religion."
>>It does not say there will be no references to God in Government or in
>>society outside the Church House!
>
>
>
>>You infuriating Godless freaks need to move to Arabia to spread "your"
>>teachings.
>
>
> That's an idea worth a second look. "Arabia", as you term it, currently
> offers a number of useful instructional examples of what happens when
> religion steers the government. And I'm thinking purely of the stifling,
> stultifying effect on lives of their own citizens when I say that.
>
>
> A good does of secularism is precisely what countries as Saudia
> Arabia and Iran could use. Iran, thank no One at all,
thanks to no-one at all?
you dishonour Iranians who are promoting Secularism in Iran.
try thanking them.
appears
> posed on the brink of a secular backlash, as a new generation
> grows up which had no involvement in the Revolution.
>
> -- cary
>
>
--
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it,
you guys could have done it, you could have been there
in 48 hours -- and then what? Which sergeant, which
private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a
fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the
most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would
be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I,
unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went
beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show
our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be
an occupying power -- America in an Arab land
-- with no allies at our side. It would have been
disastrous."
-- G. Bush 2/28/1998
fred
The 10th Amendment uniquely gave the states the power to legislate
religion. But some states abused this power. The 14th Amendment was
written to stop this abuse of power. However, the states can still
make laws which authorize public schools to lead school children in
reciting the Pledge, for example. This is because the 14th Amendment
did nothing to change how the 1st and 10th Amendments divide powers
between federal and state governments despite what separationists like
you want everybody to think. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 14th
Amendment doesn't even mention the 10th Amendment. Corrupt Supreme
Court judges probably decided that the 10th Amendment was a lose canon
and decided it best not to even mention it in key church and state
separation opinions. It's probably not the easiest job in the world to
usurp legislation when you're dealing with a written Constitution.
However, with respect any religious laws that the states do legislate,
section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that such laws have to be written
in such a way as to not abridge the personal federal freedoms of US
citizens. This means that although public schools have the
constitutional power to lead school children in a voluntary recitation
of the Pledge as per the previous example, the states can't do anything
about the children of atheist parents who order their children not to
recite the Pledge.
Again, the point is that Newdow doesn't know what he's talking about
when he claims that the Founding Fathers decided on absolute church and
state separation. And federal judges wouldn't be calling the shots
with respect to state issues if more people were aware of how the 10th
Amendment was meant to protect their religious freedoms.
>
> I'm not sure where you have heard this "can't address religion"
> argument. Certainly not from me, and certainly not from the Supreme
> Court. The Court, in the context of public education, said:
>
> "In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete
> without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and
> its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be
> said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic
<snipped for brevity>
Patrick Vallely
>
> The 10th Amendment uniquely gave the states the power to legislate
> religion. But some states abused this power. The 14th Amendment was
> written to stop this abuse of power. However, the states can still
> make laws which authorize public schools to lead school children in
> reciting the Pledge, for example. This is because the 14th Amendment
> did nothing to change how the 1st and 10th Amendments divide powers
> between federal and state governments despite what separationists like
> you want everybody to think. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 14th
> Amendment doesn't even mention the 10th Amendment. Corrupt Supreme
> Court judges probably decided that the 10th Amendment was a lose canon
> and decided it best not to even mention it in key church and state
> separation opinions. It's probably not the easiest job in the world to
> usurp legislation when you're dealing with a written Constitution.
You say that the Tenth Amendment uniquely gave the power to states to
address religion. Do you also believe that the Tenth Amendment uniquely
gave the power to states to abridge speech, because the First Amendment
removed that power from the states? How about the power to authorize
unreasonable searches and seizures? Since the Fourth Amendment denied
that power to the federal government, your logic would say the Tenth
Amendment reserved the power of unreasonable search and seizure for the
state? Are you also upset at the Supreme Court for not mentioning the
Tenth Amendment in free speech, search and seizure, and
self-incrimination cases?
> However, with respect any religious laws that the states do legislate,
> section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that such laws have to be written
> in such a way as to not abridge the personal federal freedoms of US
> citizens. This means that although public schools have the
> constitutional power to lead school children in a voluntary recitation
> of the Pledge as per the previous example, the states can't do anything
> about the children of atheist parents who order their children not to
> recite the Pledge.
The first eight amendments prohibit a list of certain kinds of laws,
thus creating certain "freedoms," such as:
Freedom from laws that abridge free speech.
Freedom from laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Freedom from laws that respect an establishment of religion.
Freedom from laws that authorize an unreasonable search or seizure.
Freedom from laws that authorize a cruel and unusual punishment.
Freedom from laws that compel a person to be witness against himself in
a criminal case.
Freedom from laws that take private property for public use without just
compensation.
Most people refer to the first eight amendments as the "Bill of Rights,"
but you are adamant in asserting that these are not in fact "rights" but
"clarifications of federal-state relations."
You admit the Fourteenth Amendment places some restrictions on states.
You talk about "personal freedoms." How do you propose going about
determining what "freedoms" the Fourteenth Amendment protects and which
it doesn't? There is an easy answer, provided by the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment who cared to discuss the question: the first eight
amendments provide a list of those freedoms/restrictions on power
applicable against the states. A sampling of these restrictions on
power/freedoms are found in the list above.
> Again, the point is that Newdow doesn't know what he's talking about
> when he claims that the Founding Fathers decided on absolute church and
> state separation. And federal judges wouldn't be calling the shots
> with respect to state issues if more people were aware of how the 10th
> Amendment was meant to protect their religious freedoms.
Newdow makes no such claim re: absolute separation.
Jeff Strickland
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:v4imj1h171q837irc...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Couple that with the tons of "endorsements" daily by religious nuts,
> legislators (in varying degrees) embracing the bible, constitutes
> "promotion".
>
>
Here is the crux of the matter, you really are taking aim at the PERSONAL
religious views of all manner of government official, legislators, president
and staff, judges, and even the lowly government employee that comes to work
with Cross ear rigns or cuff links. You are seeking to erect a wall of
separation tha tis so tall and wide that the personal views of elected,
appointed and employed officials can be silenced in the public sphere. That
is the agenda here.
You are saying that because any of these officials go to church, then they
endorse religion and they are not allowed to do that. If an "endorsement"
exists in the Pledge, then it exists in lots of places where it is a
personal view, but because the person is an official then it is illegal.
Now that we know the real agenda ...
Jeff Strickland
Any law with respect to an establishment of religion is unconstitutional.
Respecting doesn't have to be in favor of religion because the subject of
the sentence is law, not religion. If the law bars religion, it is just as
unconstitutional as a law that promotes religion.
There is no constitutional prohibition against government recognition of
religion. Indeed, government recognizes religion in lots of ways.
Jeff Strickland
I agree completely, to a point.
I would like to suggest that the 14th actually forced states to treat all
citizens equally, not ignore religion. The issue of the day was the
enslavement of blacks, and the inherent unequal treatment under slavery.
Even after slavery, some states didn't want to allow the same basic rights
afforded to both whites and blacks. The 14th says that all citizens must be
treated equally. In my view, there is a twist taking place that says states
can not do or say things.
The states can not treat people differently because that person observes
faith differently than the state does, but I do not see the prohibition
against faith on the state. The 1st Amendment says that anybody can have his
faith, or not. The states can express faith as they want, but they can't
alter the rights of anybody that expresses his own faith in deference to the
faith of the state. The feds are prohibited from establishing religion, not
the states.
Cary Kittrell
A Buddhist should choke on the words "under God". Any adherent
of the many non-monotheistic religions will be as uncomfortable
with the Pledge as you would be swearing an oath "under the gods"
or "by the Goddess".
That these things don't even occur to you underscores the fact that
this phrase gives official sanction to the default religions of
this country.
-- cary
fred
What did I just get finished saying? The Bill of Rights evidently
wasn't enough to protect US citizens from states who decided to run the
show just like the "good old days" in England.
Until the 14th Amendment was written some states disregarded the Bill
of Rights and things were a mess.
>
>
> > However, with respect any religious laws that the states do legislate,
> > section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that such laws have to be written
> > in such a way as to not abridge the personal federal freedoms of US
> > citizens. This means that although public schools have the
> > constitutional power to lead school children in a voluntary recitation
> > of the Pledge as per the previous example, the states can't do anything
> > about the children of atheist parents who order their children not to
> > recite the Pledge.
>
> The first eight amendments prohibit a list of certain kinds of laws,
> thus creating certain "freedoms," such as:
>
> Freedom from laws that abridge free speech.
> Freedom from laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
> Freedom from laws that respect an establishment of religion.
> Freedom from laws that authorize an unreasonable search or seizure.
> Freedom from laws that authorize a cruel and unusual punishment.
> Freedom from laws that compel a person to be witness against himself in
> a criminal case.
> Freedom from laws that take private property for public use without just
> compensation.
>
> Most people refer to the first eight amendments as the "Bill of Rights,"
> but you are adamant in asserting that these are not in fact "rights" but
> "clarifications of federal-state relations."
We're talking about how the states, not the federal government, should
have changed the Pledge. You're sidestepping the issue by putting
words into my mouth and ignoring that 10th Amendment automatically
delegated the power to address religion to the states since the 1st
Amendment prohibited this power only to the federal government.
>
> You admit the Fourteenth Amendment places some restrictions on states.
> You talk about "personal freedoms." How do you propose going about
> determining what "freedoms" the Fourteenth Amendment protects and which
> it doesn't? There is an easy answer, provided by the framers of the
> Fourteenth Amendment who cared to discuss the question: the first eight
> amendments provide a list of those freedoms/restrictions on power
> applicable against the states. A sampling of these restrictions on
> power/freedoms are found in the list above.
>
> > Again, the point is that Newdow doesn't know what he's talking about
> > when he claims that the Founding Fathers decided on absolute church and
> > state separation. And federal judges wouldn't be calling the shots
> > with respect to state issues if more people were aware of how the 10th
> > Amendment was meant to protect their religious freedoms.
>
> Newdow makes no such claim re: absolute separation.
Newdow refers to the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding
church and state separation. But such an assertion completely ignores
the 10th Amendment and reasonably implies absolute church and state
separation.
Patrick Vallely
> Patrick Vallely wrote:
And you're refusing to answer my question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
your logic goes as:
1. The First Amendment denied the federal government the power to pass a
law respecting an establishment of religion (or as you put it, "address"
religion).
2. The Tenth Amendment reserved the same power denied the federal
government to the states (to "address religion"/pass a law "respecting
an establishment of religion").
3. The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change #1 or #2.
My question: *do you argue this same logic apply to other limitations on
federal power found in the first eight amendments*? For example, the
First Amendment prohibited the power of Congress to abridge free speech.
Under your #2 above, the Tenth Amendment therefore reserves to the
states the power to abridge free speech. Under step #3 of your logic
above, the Fourteenth Amendment did not change #1 or #2, and therefore,
even after the Fourteenth Amendment, states may still abridge free
speech, because, in your words, the "10th Amendment automatically
delegated the power to [abridge free speech] to the states since the 1st
Amendment prohibited this power only to the federal government." There's
no putting words in your mouth here: I'm merely inserting one First
Amendment limitation on federal power for another; othe than that it's a
direct quote. So if this isn't your view, please explain why not re:
free speech.
>>You admit the Fourteenth Amendment places some restrictions on states.
>>You talk about "personal freedoms." How do you propose going about
>>determining what "freedoms" the Fourteenth Amendment protects and which
>>it doesn't? There is an easy answer, provided by the framers of the
>>Fourteenth Amendment who cared to discuss the question: the first eight
>>amendments provide a list of those freedoms/restrictions on power
>>applicable against the states. A sampling of these restrictions on
>>power/freedoms are found in the list above.
>>
>>
>>>Again, the point is that Newdow doesn't know what he's talking about
>>>when he claims that the Founding Fathers decided on absolute church and
>>>state separation. And federal judges wouldn't be calling the shots
>>>with respect to state issues if more people were aware of how the 10th
>>>Amendment was meant to protect their religious freedoms.
>>
>>Newdow makes no such claim re: absolute separation.
>
>
> Newdow refers to the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding
> church and state separation. But such an assertion completely ignores
> the 10th Amendment and reasonably implies absolute church and state
> separation.
Then I need some sort of reference to support your view of how Newdow
frames his argument. Keep in mind that the "Founding Fathers" and
"Framers" are different groups of people, and the term "Framers" itself
can refer to different groups of people.
The founding fathers is a broad class including those who fought in the
revolutionary war and were involved in government in the early years
under the Articles of Confederation and Constitution.
"Framers" is itself ambiguous, but refers to a class of people
responsible for "framing" a given constitutional clause or amendment.
Some might argue this includes only the "prime movers" or "drafters,"
others would include everyone at a constitutional convention, and still
others would include in the term "framers" those involved in
ratification debates (in addition to those at the convention).
Further, the "framers" of the Constitution were not the same people as
the "framers" of the First Amendment. And of course, the "framers" of
the Fourteenth Amendment are a completely different group than the
"framers" of the First Amendment, all of which were dead when the
Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified.
Also, with respect to "separation of church and state," keep in mind
that there are two questions we are dealing with:
(1) Against what goverments do the First Amendment's restrictions on
power apply?
(2) What is the extent of such restrictions on power?
The "separation of church and state" argument addresses *only* question
(2). Nobody, not Newdow, not me, not the Supreme Court, argues that the
word "state" in "separation of church and state" refers to the states.
"State" in this context is just a synonym for "government," leaving open
the question as to "which government?". So when someone, ie Jefferson or
Madison, characterizes the First Amendment as erecting a wall of
separation between church and state, they are not ignoring the Tenth
Amendment, because the Tenth Amendment (at least in your view) deals
with question (1) above, while the separation language is just a way to
characterize the limitations upon whatever government against which the
First Amendment is applicable.
fred
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127959771....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Patrick Vallely wrote:
> >> fred wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
I agree with you in spirit.
However, laws discriminate by age and gender. Five year olds cannot
drive cars, for example. So the idea of forcing states to treat all
citizens equally must be something left over from the women's
liberation movement. (Please don't get me wrong about the women's
liberation movement. I think the movement brought about some needed
changes.)
My take on equality it is that a given law must be interpreted and
applied the same way for all people that the law applies to.
>
> The states can not treat people differently because that person observes
> faith differently than the state does, but I do not see the prohibition
> against faith on the state. The 1st Amendment says that anybody can have his
> faith, or not. The states can express faith as they want, but they can't
> alter the rights of anybody that expresses his own faith in deference to the
> faith of the state. The feds are prohibited from establishing religion, not
> the states.
I agree. A state can not only officially encourage the recitation of
the Pledge but also recognize Christmas and Easter as official
holidays, as examples. However, section 1 of the 14th Amendment means
that non-Christians living in the state can simply choose not to recite
the Pledge and ignore any official observances of religious holidays.
>
<snipped for brevity>
fred
There you go again with this "your logic" nonsense. You evidently
don't give a damn what the Constitution says and are trying to "amend"
the Constitution by means of twisted, politically correct
interpretations of the Constitution.
>
> 1. The First Amendment denied the federal government the power to pass a
> law respecting an establishment of religion (or as you put it, "address"
> religion).
> 2. The Tenth Amendment reserved the same power denied the federal
> government to the states (to "address religion"/pass a law "respecting
> an establishment of religion").
> 3. The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change #1 or #2.
>
> My question: *do you argue this same logic apply to other limitations on
> federal power found in the first eight amendments*? For example, the
> First Amendment prohibited the power of Congress to abridge free speech.
> Under your #2 above, the Tenth Amendment therefore reserves to the
> states the power to abridge free speech. Under step #3 of your logic
> above, the Fourteenth Amendment did not change #1 or #2, and therefore,
> even after the Fourteenth Amendment, states may still abridge free
> speech, because, in your words, the "10th Amendment automatically
> delegated the power to [abridge free speech] to the states since the 1st
> Amendment prohibited this power only to the federal government." There's
> no putting words in your mouth here: I'm merely inserting one First
> Amendment limitation on federal power for another; othe than that it's a
> direct quote. So if this isn't your view, please explain why not re:
> free speech.
What is this "same logic" stuff? Do you lose points with your
atheist/separationist "friends" if you admit that the assertions that
I've been making about certain amendments are reasonable? And there is
another poster who seems to be regarding the assertions I'm making as
reasonable which casts doubt on your "same logic" rants.
Before the 14th Amendment was made, some states essentially ignored the
personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution which probably reflects
the "same logic" that you've been alluding to. But as I've said
elsewhere, the 14th Amendment addressed this problem by putting a
general limit on all laws that the states make. Simply put, the states
cannot write laws that abridge the personal federal freedoms of US
citizens.
However, people like you are evidently so determined to force your
absolute church/state separation agenda into the Constitution that you
misread the 14th Amendment in an attempt to convince people that the
1st Amendment's prohibitions on Congress also apply to the states. The
problem with such a misleading claim is that the 14th Amendment doesn't
touch how the 1st and 10th Amendments prohibit and delegate powers
between the federal and state governments.
You are essentially trying to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet
with your "same logic" rants.
>
> >>You admit the Fourteenth Amendment places some restrictions on states.
> >>You talk about "personal freedoms." How do you propose going about
> >>determining what "freedoms" the Fourteenth Amendment protects and which
> >>it doesn't? There is an easy answer, provided by the framers of the
> >>Fourteenth Amendment who cared to discuss the question: the first eight
> >>amendments provide a list of those freedoms/restrictions on power
> >>applicable against the states. A sampling of these restrictions on
> >>power/freedoms are found in the list above.
Why are you now pretending to care what the framers though? The fact
that you attempt to twist the reasonable interpretation of key
amendments to force absolute church/state separation into the
Constitution shows that you don't really care what the framers thought.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Again, the point is that Newdow doesn't know what he's talking about
> >>>when he claims that the Founding Fathers decided on absolute church and
> >>>state separation. And federal judges wouldn't be calling the shots
> >>>with respect to state issues if more people were aware of how the 10th
> >>>Amendment was meant to protect their religious freedoms.
> >>
> >>Newdow makes no such claim re: absolute separation.
> >
> >
> > Newdow refers to the intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding
> > church and state separation. But such an assertion completely ignores
> > the 10th Amendment and reasonably implies absolute church and state
> > separation.
>
<snipped for brevity>
Patrick Vallely
You ignored my questions, so I'll repost for your consideration. My post
had very little to do with church/state separation. I merely asked for
answers about how the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments relate.
Here is my post, for your response:
And you're refusing to answer my question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
your logic goes as:
1. The First Amendment denied the federal government the power to pass a
law respecting an establishment of religion (or as you put it, "address"
religion).
2. The Tenth Amendment reserved the same power denied the federal
government to the states (to "address religion"/pass a law "respecting
an establishment of religion").
3. The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change #1 or #2.
My question: *do you argue this same logic apply to other limitations on
federal power found in the first eight amendments*? For example, the
First Amendment prohibited the power of Congress to abridge free speech.
Under your #2 above, the Tenth Amendment therefore reserves to the
states the power to abridge free speech. Under step #3 of your logic
above, the Fourteenth Amendment did not change #1 or #2, and therefore,
even after the Fourteenth Amendment, states may still abridge free
speech, because, in your words, the "10th Amendment automatically
delegated the power to [abridge free speech] to the states since the 1st
Amendment prohibited this power only to the federal government." There's
no putting words in your mouth here: I'm merely inserting one First
Amendment limitation on federal power for another; othe than that it's a
direct quote. So if this isn't your view, please explain why not re:
free speech.
If the above is not your argument, please explain why.
fred
I've been addressing your question by simply asserting that things were
indeed a mess before the 14th Amendment was made. The checks and
balances in the Constitution before the post Civil War amendments were
added were evidently inadequate with respect to protecting personal
federal freedoms from tyrant state governments.
Patrick Vallely
Let's act like the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't exist for one post. The
following are yes/no questions, but if you want to add explanation after
your yes/no answer, that would be helpful:
1) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws respecting
an establishment of religion. Is your argument that the Tenth Amendment
thus reserves the power to the states to pass laws respecting an
establishment of religion?
2) If yes to #1, does the same go for speech? 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?
I have more questions, but going in to more detail now will apparently
prevent you from answering, instead just sputtering back "You darn
atheists want absolute separation!," which doesn't really answer my
question.
Jeff Strickland
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:ghgoj1h5q53gup239...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Sep 2005 10:12:04 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (Please don't get me wrong about the women's
>>liberation movement. I think the movement brought about some needed
>>changes.)
>
> are necessary?
>
> If you live in a state that is decidedly fundamentalist oriented (such
> as the bible belt), do you suppose women would get as fair a shake as
> those living in---say New York?
>
> And if you say that "states" should decide, why would anyone accept
> the idea that a women in a retarded geographical venue be accorded
> LESS rights than one how lived a few hundred miles north?
>
>
You missed the part about the same law applying equally to all citizens.
fred
Yes
Again, I am simply applying Jefferson's "secret formula" with respect
to interpreting the Constitution:
"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
>
> 2) If yes to #1, does the same go for speech? 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?
Yes
The logic is quite obvious. And I've repeatedly been saying that
things were a mess before the 1t4h Amendment was written because of
this "loophole".
However, the spirit of the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR does not
condone abridging free speech. But when people who don't give a damn
what the Constitution says, bully pulpit preachers for example, get
control of state government power then bad things start to happen.
>
> I have more questions, but going in to more detail now will apparently
> prevent you from answering, instead just sputtering back "You darn
> atheists want absolute separation!," which doesn't really answer my
> question.
What a bunch of baloney! :^(
Given your repeated questioning of "my logic," with respect to the 10th
Amendment, you are not being honest with yourself about what basic
reading skills tell us about the amendments. This is evidenced by your
leading question as to whether or not the 10th Amedment reserved (not
preserved) the power of the states to abridge free speech. What a
slimeball thought!
The bottom line is that instead of being honest with yourself and
accepting what your common sense tells you about the amendments, you
are preoccupied with playing with words to preserve the pretense of
Patrick Vallely
So now we've established that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the
states could pass laws (1) respecting an establishment of religion, and
(2) abriding free speech. This is because the First Amendment, by its
terms, applies only to Congress.
Now the next yes/no question:
(1) Now we're looking at present day with the Fourteenth Amendment. Is
there anything in the federal constitution or its amendments that
prevents a state from passing a law (a) respecting an establishment of
religion or (b) abridging free speech?
(2) If yes to 1, what terms in the constitution or its amendments
prevent a state from doing (1)(a) and (1)(b)?
Cary Kittrell
That's right. The good old fourteenth amendment.
And if you've been paying attention, you will have noticed that
Fred does not regard the 14th amendment in exactly the
same way that everyone else involved here does.
-- cary
fred
Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
what the establishment clause means.
>
>
>
> -- cary
Cary Kittrell
You rest my case.
-- cary
Jeff Strickland
Unless I've missed something, I see that Fred says that people deserve equal
rights, but that states and localities can engage in religious speech, maybe
even promote religion. He seems to argue that only the Feds can not pass
laws with respect to religion, but that the States are free to pass them.
I haven't seen anything to suggest that people be treated in a disparate
manner. Indeed, he seems to be saying that if the States are prohibited from
religious speech, it is because of the 14th Amendment, not any of the
others. It appears to me that he is saying that the 10th specifically gives
States the RIGHT to endorse religion, because the Feds are specifically
prohibited, and stuff that is not up to the feds is left up to the states.
But, I don't need to sit here and explain Fred, he seems to be able to do a
pretty good job of doing that himself.
Cary Kittrell
I think you have it right.
And if Utah could proclaim Mormon as being the Official State
Religion, and give it financial and zoning breaks it would
deny to Baptists, then I would argue that this is in fact not
an example of the equal treatment before the law.
-- cary
fred
yes
>
> I haven't seen anything to suggest that people be treated in a disparate
> manner. Indeed, he seems to be saying that if the States are prohibited from
> religious speech, it is because of the 14th Amendment, not any of the
> others. It appears to me that he is saying that the 10th specifically gives
> States the RIGHT to endorse religion, because the Feds are specifically
> prohibited, and stuff that is not up to the feds is left up to the states.
yes and no
Back to my examples. Again, the 10th Amendment delegated the power to
legislate religion uniquely to the states since 1st Amendment
explicitly prohibited Congress (the federal government) and only
Congress from making laws dealing with religion. So the states have
the Constitutional power to make laws to allow public schools to recite
the Pledge, to lead classroom discussions on the pros and cons of
evolution, creationism, irreducible complexity, to officially recognize
religious holidays like Christmas and Easter, just to name a few
examples -- that was the gist of the idea anyway.
What actually happened is that some states evidently began abusing
their powers by forcing people to do things similar to those listed
above. Bully puplit preachers undoubtedly damned the Constitution and
pirated state power to force their religious beliefs down people's
throats. Social unrest with respect to such abuse of power unlimately
resulted in the Civil War. So some states had essentially preserved
the tyrannical practices of England up until the time of the Civil War.
The 14th Amendment was written to make the personal freedoms aspects of
the Bill of Rights mandatory for the states since some states had
decided not to respect people's federal rights. But this is where
separationists have seemingly failed to understand how the 1st, 10th
and 14th Amendments not only protect our freedom of religious
expression, but also protect citizens at large from bully pulpit
preachers.
To be blunt, today's politically correct interpretation of the
establishment clause as defined by Justice Black in the Everson case
seems to eerily reflect what people probably wanted to believe about
the 1st Amendment before the 14th Amendment was written. I wouldn't be
surprised if pre-Civil War victims of the abuse of state powers might
have been desperately willing to find "hidden meaning" in the 1st
Amendment to get the government, specifically the state governments,
off their backs. People may have hoped that "special insight" into the
1st Amendment would curtail the tyrannical abuse of state powers.
The reason that I've been emphasizing the 14th Amendment with respect
to my rants about the establishment clause is because I see no reason
to get anybody upset, believe it or not, with respect to attacking the
establishment clause. This is because people evidently ignorantly
believe that the establishment clause is the only thing that protects
them from the abuse of government power to address religion. I
wholeheartedly agree that nobody wants to have their buttons pressed by
bully pulpit preachers. But why unconstitutionally limit religious
expression with a corrupt interpretation of the establishment clause
when everybody can be happier if people understood how the 1st, 10th
and 14th Amendments actually work where our religious freedoms are
concerned?
Gray Shockley
:
> Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> what the establishment clause means.
ROTFL!!!!
That's hilarious, anonymous, apparently
illiterate and irrational UseNet wack.
Are you trying to be a knightette?
Gray Shockley
-------------------
Swinehood hath no remedy.
- Sidney Lanier
fred
You might understand the 14th Amendment, but you're not thinking the
14th Amendment. My complements to your brainwasher.
The 14th Amendment would prohibit financial and zoning breaks on the
basis of religious beliefs. However, Utah could officially recognize
Joseph Smith's birthday, for example. Not to be disrespectful, but
non-Mormon Utah residents could simply ignore the day, not that
non-Mormons wouldn't mind taking a day off from work and school too.
This is all hypothetical of course.
>
>
> -- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:20:45 -0500, fred wrote
> :
>
> > Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> > what the establishment clause means.
>
>
> ROTFL!!!!
>
>
> That's hilarious, anonymous, apparently
> illiterate and irrational UseNet wack.
>
> Are you trying to be a knightette?
Well, there ARE similarities. Remember, John shrieks
that the blame for Roe v. Wade is entirely Sandra
Day O'Connor's fault, even though our Sandra's
opinion on this case wasn't influential as you
might think, being as she was some years away from
actually being appointed to the Court.
Fred apparently thinks that similarly, Black single-handledly
enforced his lone and singular views on the 14th
Amendment and the First Amendment on an unwilling
judiciary and nation.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
And absent the 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution,
if "strictly constructed", to prohibit a Utah law designating
being a Quaker as a capital offense, as was once the case in
the colony of Massachusetts (Baptists were treated only
marginally better)
-- cary
fred
Yes, although I don't believe that the Reynold's opinion referenced
your specific example, the Reynolds opinion mentioned some less extreme
abuses of power with respect to the colonies.
Regardless, the 14th Amendment isn't going anywhere so what's your
point about the Quaker example?
Cary Kittrell
To illustrate, by an absurdly extreme example, why I think that
the fact that "the 14th Amendment isn't going anywhere", nor
does the current interpretation of it seem likely to change
soon, to be two very Good Ideas indeed.
-- cary
fred
You are evidently a brainwashed "prisoner" of conscious with respect to
the separationist lies about the establishment clause. The
establishment clause is your filthy security blanket which you believe
protects you from bully pulpit preachers and you're not about to let
anybody pull it away from you.
Gray Shockley
wrote
:
Speaking of Ready Freddie, have you checked God
Hates Sweden?
<http://www.godhatessweden.com/>
DeadHeadFred is, of course, a pale [positively]
shadow of John Latrino ScatBoy Knight but John
Latrino ScatBoy Knight is an absolutely
/transparent/ copy of Fred "I've only been
disbarred twice" Phelps and the Phelpettes.
Remember: the Phelpette of today
is the criminally insane of tomorrow.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
Patrick Vallely
>
> You are evidently a brainwashed "prisoner" of conscious with respect to
> the separationist lies about the establishment clause. The
> establishment clause is your filthy security blanket which you believe
> protects you from bully pulpit preachers and you're not about to let
> anybody pull it away from you.
>
Fred... in earlier posts we've established that prior to the Fourteenth
Amendment, the states could pass laws (1) respecting an establishment of
religion, and (2) abriding free speech. This is because the First
Amendment, by its terms, applies only to Congress.
Now the next yes/no questions:
(1) Consider the present day with the Fourteenth Amendment in place. Is
there anything in the federal constitution or its amendments that
prevents a state from passing a law (a) respecting an establishment of
religion or (b) abridging free speech?
(2) If yes to (1), what terms in the constitution or its amendments
fred
Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =
> >Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> >what the establishment clause means.
>
Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
the Everson opinion. He probably regarded the 10th Amendment as too
much of a lose canon to even mention. The 10 Amendment had to be swept
under the carpet.
Bob LeChevalier
>Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> =
>> >Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
>> >what the establishment clause means.
>>
>> I'm sure glad people like you argue your "side"
>
>Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
>the Everson opinion.
Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
of the Establishment Clause.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
>:|addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
>:|power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
>:|Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
>:|incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
>:|the law.
>:|
>:|And for the activist judges, atheists and separationists who dread the
>:|idea that the states could then make everybody recite the Pledge,
>:|please put your brains into gear for once. Section 1 of the 14th
>:|Amendment prohibits the states from using their power to address
>:|religion to abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. In
>:|other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from forcing you
>:|to say anything that you don't want to say.
>:|
>:|Note that the Supreme Court's politically correct interpretation of the
>:|establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with this. Basic
>:|reading skills tell us that the establishment clause simply helps to
>:|define the kinds of laws that Congress is prohibited from writing.
>:|
>:|For more information about how the 1st and 10th Amendments deal with
>:|religion try: [ This essay witten by the Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic Alan Keyes ]
>:|
>:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
buckeye-...@nospam.net Aug 22, 5:56 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, alt.education,
alt.atheism, alt.religion.christianity, misc.education
From: buckeye-...@nospam.net
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:56:56 -0400
Local: Mon, Aug 22 2005 5:56 am
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF RELIGION
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:| The essay referenced below shows the
>:|relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments and religion:
>:|
>:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
>:|
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time I found his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
>:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
>:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
>:|federal government.
>:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
>:|essay referenced by the link below explains
>:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
>:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
**********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat
Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
* Abortion & Euthanasia
* Affirmative Action
* Homosexual Rights
* Religion / School Prayer
* School Choice
* Second Amendment Rights
* Sex Education
* Taxes & Government Spending
* United Nations
* Welfare / Family Disintegration
*******************************************************************
buckeye-...@nospam.net wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U11651FDB
************************************************************
PART V
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
*************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
***************************************************************
[ Snipped the rest your or usual radical religious right theocratic
propaganda ]
***************************************************************
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 ยท 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
****************************************************************
Cary Kittrell
Interesting that the only possible explanation for someone who considers a
matter and arrives at a conclusion different from your own must be, clearly,
that he has been "brainwashed".
I recall that the last time I was so designated by you; it was when we
were discussing "Intelligent Design". It turned out to be
of no consequence that I know far more about evolution than
you -- nor even that I actually knew far more detail about Behe's
and Dembski's and Johnson's claims than you did -- nor that I provided
answers to your questions, nor that I in turn posed questions
about "Intelligent Design" which you, being unable to answer
-- or perhaps comprehend -- ignored. Nope, the fact that
my opinions on the matter were opposed to your own surely
must have been due to brainwashing, by persons unspecified.
And incidentally, the correct phrase is "prisoner of conscience".
And that one, ironically, is apropos. I am a prisoner of
conscience, in quite a number of different ways at that. I hope
to remain so; it's necessary to maintain one's self-respect.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Indeed, I had in fact seen that. Canada too, eh?
>
>
> DeadHeadFred is, of course, a pale [positively]
> shadow of John Latrino ScatBoy Knight but John
> Latrino ScatBoy Knight is an absolutely
> /transparent/ copy of Fred "I've only been
> disbarred twice" Phelps and the Phelpettes.
>
>
That's funny; I had just been thinking about
how our John, just like Phred himself, is
an outrage addict.
The difference being that it never occurred
to John to raise an entire brood of capitve
lawyers.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
> >> On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> =
> >> >Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> >> >what the establishment clause means.
> >>
> >> I'm sure glad people like you argue your "side"
> >
> >Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
> >the Everson opinion.
>
> Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
> conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
> issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
> not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
> of the Establishment Clause.
That's right. Which reinforces the resonance Fred's hate-on for
Black has with our own John Knight's perpetual insistence that
Sandra Day O'Connor is responsible for Roe v. Wade, even
though she did not actually vote for it (being, inconveniently,
not a member of the Court yet).
-- cary
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|The Constitution simply prevents the Government EATABLISHING a "State
>:|Religion."
Actually, it doesn't
The words are
". . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What you claim isn't there
the other words are
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Nope what you say it says isn't there either
you might consider this too, though I doubt you will:
BACKGROUND COMMENTARY
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950) page
527)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some data on why a the establishment of a national church or religion in
the European style would have been next to impossible to achieve.
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776,Based on Number of Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of Jernegan's 3,228 congregations could be located
by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker, Mennonite,
Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New ]ersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCHES DURING AND
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were
slaves. Recent studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over
three thousand religious organizations or congregations, counting each
church or chapel separately. These were divided about equally among New
England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the South. The total (3,005)
actually enumerated--about one thousand more than were estimated a decade
ago 49--were thus
distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming increasingly
prominent in the South ... ... 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the Carolinas,
and Virginia ........... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in
Maryland.................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationalist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D.,
LL.D Harper & Brothers, New York, (1950) page 273
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Strickland
"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128036599.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I agree. What the states are permitted to do morphed into excesses. The
states have much more room to get into religion than the feds have, but some
states abused their position and required religious activity that abused the
1st Amendment.
Had the Jews taken over Utah instead of the Mormons, I would see no problem
with Utah having Channakuh instead of Christmas. No matter who is running
Utah, I see no problem with Christmas displays in the park whether they have
The Manger or Santa Claus or some combination of the two.
Cary Kittrell
Such tolerance is admirable. But I must ask: does it also extend to religions
other than those which, to the rest of the world, are indistinguishable from
your own? As far as most of the world goes, the three religions of the
Book are pretty much minor variations on the same basic theme.
If Wiccans took over Utah instead, would you be content with displays
of The Goddess in the parks? Or take Marcus Aurelius -- one of Rome's most
intelligent, well-read and duty-driven emperors -- who had a statue of his murdered
boy lover erected, to celebrate the fact that the boy had been elevated, post-mortem,
to the status of a god. This was not particularly remarkable, and was
in keeping with the common religious practices of the Rome of that day. Would you be content
with such a statue going up in Liberty Park in Salt Lake City?
-- cary
Gray Shockley
Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> DeadHeadFred is, of course, a pale [positively]
>> shadow of John Latrino ScatBoy Knight but John
>> Latrino ScatBoy Knight is an absolutely
>> /transparent/ copy of Fred "I've only been
>> disbarred twice" Phelps and the Phelpettes.
>>
>>
>
> That's funny; I had just been thinking about
> how our John, just like Phred himself, is
> an outrage addict.
>
> The difference being that it never occurred
> to John to raise an entire brood of capitve
> lawyers.
>
>
> -- cary
>
However, that being the (legal) case, ScatBoy
Knight hasn't been disbarred by her/his/its state
and and federal governments.
DeadHeadFred (the phelps one), however, does seem
to share her/his/its "personality" (for lack of a
more precise word) of John Latrino ScatBoy
Knight, aka "Red".
Throw in a little of immoral and unethical former
judge Moore and one has another Unholey Trinity
that would please anyone who is to the political
right of Jesus.
++ gray
Gray Shockley
wrote
:
Yeah, well, she would've if she could've.
++ gray
fred
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
> >> On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> =
> >> >Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> >> >what the establishment clause means.
> >>
> >> I'm sure glad people like you argue your "side"
> >
> >Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
> >the Everson opinion.
>
> Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
> conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
> issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
> not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
> of the Establishment Clause.
Then all the Justices helped to sweep the 10th Amendment under the
carpet and lied about the establishment clause.
Cary Kittrell
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
> > >> On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> =
> > >> >Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
> > >> >what the establishment clause means.
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure glad people like you argue your "side"
> > >
> > >Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
> > >the Everson opinion.
> >
> > Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
> > conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
> > issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
> > not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
> > of the Establishment Clause.
>
> Then all the Justices helped to sweep the 10th Amendment under the
> carpet and lied about the establishment clause.
Good lord. First "brainwashing", now a conspiracy of lies which swept up
the the entire Supreme Court, liberal justices and conservative justices
alike.
Is it even slightly possible that honest, intelligent, and knowledgeable
people can arrive arrive at honest, intelligent, and informed conclusions
which happen to differ from your own?
-- cary
Jeff Strickland
Sure.
If I was the only one that complained, then I'd be voted out. But if my
complaints were shared by the majority, then we would get our way, or I'd
not live in Utah.
I'd go where my view was shared by my neighbors. We live in a country where
we hold democracy dear. This means the will of the majority prevails. If I
elect to not join the majority, then fine, I'll be exposed to shit that
pisses me off. Oh well. Even if I am a member of the majority, the rest of
the majority manages to piss me off quite often. Oh well. If I travel to a
community of - or state filled with -- wiccans, then I would expect to see
stuff that wiccans like to have around. As long as they don't make me be a
wiccan, or punish me for not being a wiccan, then I'm okay with them being
wiccan. Big deal.
Cary Kittrell
OK. I certainly accept that this is your opinion on this.
I would quibble about one point only, however: the will of the majority
does not always prevail. If the majority decided that we want to re-institute
slavery, or to forbid media criticism of our leaders, or abolish jury
trials, it still would not happen. So it comes down, as always, to
a question of what exactly the establishment clause forbids, and what
it allows.
-- cary
Patrick Vallely
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>>"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Knick...@Hang-up.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29 Sep 2005 13:20:45 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>=
>>>>
>>>>>Justice Black lied about the 14th Amendment as much as he lied about
>>>>>what the establishment clause means.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure glad people like you argue your "side"
>>>
>>>Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
>>>the Everson opinion.
>>
>>Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
>>conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
>>issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
>>not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
>>of the Establishment Clause.
>
>
> Then all the Justices helped to sweep the 10th Amendment under the
> carpet and lied about the establishment clause.
>
Fred,
(1) Is there anything in the federal constitution or its amendments that
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Note that Justice Black completely "overlooked" the 10th Amendment in
>> >the Everson opinion.
>>
>> Note that the Everson decision was a rare 9-0 decision that both
>> conservative and liberal justices agreed on with respect to the main
>> issue being discussed. Black wrote the words of the opinion; he did
>> not solely decide the issue. EVERY justice agreed with the definition
>> of the Establishment Clause.
>
>Then all the Justices helped to sweep the 10th Amendment under the
>carpet and lied about the establishment clause.
Or just MAYBE, they are better trained in the law than you are, and it
is YOU who are in error and "lying about the establishment clause".
Jeff Strickland
Well no, the majority can't decide to violate individual rights. It can vote
to have a view on religion that opposes my particular view, but it can't
vote to punish me because my view is different.
Just because I elect to behave differently than everybody else doesn't
expose me to punishment. To be sure, everybody else is going to have a
standard of behavior that they might reward with some sort of perk, and I
can elect to forgo the perk by behaving differently, but I shouldn't be
jailed because I elected to forgo the perk.
This is where gay marriage comes in. We as a society have decided to
encourage people to have kids so that those kids can replace the elders in
time. We call the perk marriage, and those that are married behave in a
manner that is expected by society. Gays by definition can not behave in the
same manner, therefore society should be able to deny the perk. We can't
drag gays around by the bumper of our pick up trucks and hang them from a
barb-wire fence because they are different than us, but we can refuse to
accept them as "married." They - gays - behave outside the norm, so they
forgo the perk. I don't see any problem at all.
I only bring that up to show that I expect the same treatment of me that I
propose for others. If I am not going to conform, I'm not going to demand
the same things. All I can reasonably demand is that I am not drug down the
road behind a truck, and duct taped to a fence.
PS
I'll be the first to agree that many married people do not behave in the
manner that is socially beneificial, and they do not deserve the perk of
marriage, but this doesn't negate notion that gays can't be "married".
Patrick Vallely
> PS
> I'll be the first to agree that many married people do not behave in the
> manner that is socially beneificial, and they do not deserve the perk of
> marriage, but this doesn't negate notion that gays can't be "married".
I'm assuming by this you mean married people who are not capable of
procreation (as an example of heterosexuals who should be denied marriage).
Jeff Strickland
>> > In article <1Z6dnc6q0oS...@ez2.net> "Jeff Strickland"
>> > <cr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > disparate
>> > > manner. Indeed, he seems to be saying that if the States are
>> > > prohibited from
>> > > religious speech, it is because of the 14th Amendment, not any of the
>> > > others. It appears to me that he is saying that the 10th specifically
>> > > gives
>> > > States the RIGHT to endorse religion, because the Feds are
>> > > specifically
>> > > prohibited, and stuff that is not up to the feds is left up to the
>> > > states.
>> > >
>> > > to do a
>> > > pretty good job of doing that himself.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > And if Utah could proclaim Mormon as being the Official State
>> > Religion, and give it financial and zoning breaks it would
>> > deny to Baptists, then I would argue that this is in fact not
>> > an example of the equal treatment before the law.
>>
>> You might understand the 14th Amendment, but you're not thinking the
>> 14th Amendment. My complements to your brainwasher.
>>
>> The 14th Amendment would prohibit financial and zoning breaks on the
>> basis of religious beliefs. However, Utah could officially recognize
>> Joseph Smith's birthday, for example. Not to be disrespectful, but
>> non-Mormon Utah residents could simply ignore the day, not that
>> non-Mormons wouldn't mind taking a day off from work and school too.
>> This is all hypothetical of course.
>
> And absent the 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution,
> if "strictly constructed", to prohibit a Utah law designating
> being a Quaker as a capital offense, as was once the case in
> the colony of Massachusetts (Baptists were treated only
> marginally better)
>
But Cary, the 1st Amendment prohibits Utah from designating being a Quaker
as a capital offense. There is no reason, absent the 14th, that would keep
Utah from proclaiming itself a Mormon state, but it could not force its
residents to become Mormons because the 1st prevents them from doing that.
As a non-Mormon, I would be surrounded by Mormon icons and symbols placed
there by the state, but the state could not punish me for not being Mormon.
The state can reward citizens for being Mormon, but it can't punish citizens
that elect to not be Mormon. Those that elect thusly would forgo the reward,
but that in itself is not punishment.
Cary Kittrell
Actually, no: as written, the First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from
making Quakerism a hanging offense, it says nothing about what Utah
may do along these lines. Nothing in a "strict constructionist"
reading of "Congress shall make no law..." restricts the vagaries
of state legislatures at all.
Hence the need for the 14th. Which our Fred finds highly distasteful,
as it is commonly interpreted.
-- cary
Patrick Vallely
>
>
> But Cary, the 1st Amendment prohibits Utah from designating being a
> Quaker as a capital offense. There is no reason, absent the 14th, that
> would keep Utah from proclaiming itself a Mormon state, but it could not
> force its residents to become Mormons because the 1st prevents them from
> doing that.
>
What in the First Amendment prohibits Utah from designating being Quaker
as a capital offense?
The First Amendment prohibits three types of laws:
(1) laws that respect an establishment of religion
(2) laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion
(3) laws that abridge free speech
If the First Amendment does not apply against states (either directly or
indirectly through the Fourteenth Amendment), then there is nothing in
the First Amendment that would prohibit Utah from designating being
Quaker as a capital offense (because Utah is a state, not Congress). If
the First Amendment does somehow apply against the states, then
prohibition #2 would prohibit the capital offense law, while prohibition
#1 would prohibit the declaration that Utah is a Mormon state.
fred
What is your problem? You seem to be asking the same questions over
and over again as if you are in denial with respect to the checks and
balances of the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments where the government's
power to address religion is concerned. Have your atheist "friends"
diluted your common sense to the extent that you can no longer come to
a reasonable conclusion with respect to applying your basic reading
skills to interpreting the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments? Indeed, you
must be thinking that I'm seancing my replies to your questions about
the Constitution. However, I assure you that I'm simply applying my
basic reading skills with respect to interpreting the relevant
amendments.
In order to address your questions about the Constitution you've got to
consider the timeline of the Constitution. Before the 14th Amendment
was made several states ignored the Bill of Rights. So some states
evidently did pass laws which respected establishments of religion and
abridged free speech. The Reynolds opinion includes examples of such
laws. But disregarding the federal BOR was a major problem and helped
to precipitate the Civil War.
>
> (2) If yes to (1), what terms in the constitution or its amendments
> prevent a state from doing (1)(a) and (1)(b)?
(2) is a good example of why I find your questions so aggravating. (1)
has two parts so it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.
(2) also ignores that the 14th Amendments limits the laws that the
states can make in a different way than the 1st Amendment limits the
laws that Congress can make. Whereas the 1st Amendment prohibits
Congress from making certain kinds of laws altogether, particularly
laws that deal with religion, the 14th Amendment puts general limits on
all laws that the states can make. The states can write laws
respecting an establishment of religion as long as that law doesn't
abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens living in that
state. For example, the state of Utah can write a law that designates
a day to officially recognize Joseph Smith in some way. However,
whatever way that law officially recognizes Joseph Smith cannot abridge
the personal federal rights of non-Mormons living in Utah. Not to be
disrespectful to the Mormons, but non-Mormons living in Utah can
exercise their 14th Amendment protections with respect to Joseph Smith
Day by respectfully ignoring it.
The bottom line is that section 1 of the 14th Amendment was made to put
limits on the extent that states could do (1)(a). But right off hand I
don't see any way that a state can make a law that does (1)(b) without
violating 14th Amendment prohibitions.
Your questions contain contradictory assumptions which make them
difficult to answer.
Again, to correct the pre-Civil War problem with the "independent"
states who regarded the federal BOR as optional, the post Civil War
14th Amendment made recognizing the personal federal rights of US
citizens mandatory for the states. However, the 14th Amendment did not
make the Bill of Rights "applicable to the states" the way that Justice
Black and his cohorts claimed it did. This "applicable to the states"
baloney merely reflects pre-Civil War political correctness concerning
how to make the personal protections guaranteed by the 1st Amendment
actually work, in my opinion. However, Black's greatly oversimplified
generalization about the 14th Amendment ignores the fact that some
federal BOR amendments do things besides stating personal federal
rights. Some BOR amendments also specify how government powers were
divided between the federal and state governments. So the problem with
the generalization that the 14th Amendment made the BOR applicable to
the states is that the 14th Amendment obviously didn't change how
government powers were divided between federal and state government.
This is evidenced by the fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention
the 10th Amendment. And it's really suspicious that neither does the
Everson opinion mention the 10th Amendment.
Patrick Vallely
--personal attacks (first half of the post) removed, skipped to substance--
> The bottom line is that section 1 of the 14th Amendment was made to put
> limits on the extent that states could do (1)(a). But right off hand I
> don't see any way that a state can make a law that does (1)(b) without
> violating 14th Amendment prohibitions.
The First Amendment prohibits the states from making three kinds of laws:
(a) laws that respect an establishment of religion
(b) laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion
(c) laws that abridge free speech
There's nothing from the language of the First Amendment that suggests
the free speech clause, the establishment clause, and the free exercise
clause. There's no evidence from the text or history of the First
Amendment that one clause creates "rights" and another clause merely
"limits power." In the context of constitutional law, a "right" = a
limit on power.
> Again, to correct the pre-Civil War problem with the "independent"
> states who regarded the federal BOR as optional, the post Civil War
> 14th Amendment made recognizing the personal federal rights of US
> citizens mandatory for the states.
Again, how do you go about deciding what is a right and what is not? The
form of the First Amendment is that there are three "types" of laws
Congress cannot make (see above). The framers of the first eight
amendments didn't use the word "right." They didn't call the free speech
clause a "right" and the establishment clause a "separation of powers"
issue. Basically you are just cherry-picking, saying "no law abrdiging
free speech" is a right, but "no law respecting the establishment" is
not a right. This is arbitrary.
Patrick Vallely
> fred wrote:
>
> --personal attacks (first half of the post) removed, skipped to substance--
>
>> The bottom line is that section 1 of the 14th Amendment was made to put
>> limits on the extent that states could do (1)(a). But right off hand I
>> don't see any way that a state can make a law that does (1)(b) without
>> violating 14th Amendment prohibitions.
>
>
> The First Amendment prohibits the states from making three kinds of laws:
I meant to say "Congress" in that last sentence, just to prevent Fred's
head from exploding.
Bob LeChevalier
>> And absent the 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution,
>> if "strictly constructed", to prohibit a Utah law designating
>> being a Quaker as a capital offense, as was once the case in
>> the colony of Massachusetts (Baptists were treated only
>> marginally better)
>
>But Cary, the 1st Amendment prohibits Utah from designating being a Quaker
>as a capital offense. There is no reason, absent the 14th, that would keep
>Utah from proclaiming itself a Mormon state, but it could not force its
>residents to become Mormons because the 1st prevents them from doing that.
Absent the 14th, the 1st amendment is utterly irrelevant to the
states. The can restrict free speech, establish a religion, prohibit
other religions, and make any or all of the above capital offenses,
and there is nothing the USSC could say about it. Why do we know
this? Because in fact the antebellum South did have laws that
prohibited certain kinds of speech (specifically the advocacy of
eliminating slavery, and the teaching of blacks to read), and at times
prohibited religious gatherings by blacks - effectively outlawing
their churches. And the penalty for blacks breaking laws was often
capital.
>As a non-Mormon, I would be surrounded by Mormon icons and symbols placed
>there by the state, but the state could not punish me for not being Mormon.
Surrounding you by such icons, requiring you to swear in court on a
Book of Mormon. Forbidding any other religious gathering except
Mormon ones - all would be legal if they could establish a church.
The could also require you to pledge allegiance to one nation, under
Moroni (that's the angel at the top of Mormon temples, who supposedly
gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon).
>The state can reward citizens for being Mormon, but it can't punish citizens
>that elect to not be Mormon.
Of course they can, absent the 14th. Alone among the Bill of Rights,
the 1st Amendment by itself is not in the least restrictive against
the states - again absent the 14th.
Bob LeChevalier
>> I would quibble about one point only, however: the will of the majority
>> does not always prevail. If the majority decided that we want to
>> re-institute
>> slavery, or to forbid media criticism of our leaders, or abolish jury
>> trials, it still would not happen. So it comes down, as always, to
>> a question of what exactly the establishment clause forbids, and what
>> it allows.
>>
>
>Well no, the majority can't decide to violate individual rights.
Of course it can. Without constitutional guarantees, there are no
rights.
>It can vote
>to have a view on religion that opposes my particular view, but it can't
>vote to punish me because my view is different.
Where, other than the 14th, does it say that a state cannot punish
you?
>Just because I elect to behave differently than everybody else doesn't
>expose me to punishment.
Of course it does. All they have to do is make each of your
"different" behaviors illegal.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Patrick Vallely" <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0EG_e.13433$L15.627@trndny01...
> > fred wrote:
> >> Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
> >> addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
> >> power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
> >> Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
> >> incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
> >> the law.
> >>
> >> And for the activist judges, atheists and separationists who dread the
> >> idea that the states could then make everybody recite the Pledge,
> >> Amendment prohibits the states from using their power to address
> >> religion to abridge the personal federal rights of US citizens. In
> >> other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from forcing you
> >> to say anything that you don't want to say.
> >>
> >> establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with this. Basic
> >> reading skills tell us that the establishment clause simply helps to
> >> define the kinds of laws that Congress is prohibited from writing.
> >>
> >> For more information about how the 1st and 10th Amendments deal with
> >> religion try:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So let's look at the rights, or as you call them, "clarifications," in the
> > First Amendment:
> >
> > Freedom from laws that abridge free speech.
> > Freedom from laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
> > Freedom from laws that respect an establishment of religion.
> >
>
> A law that either promotes OR prohibits religion is a law respecting an
> establilshment of religion.
A law that prohibits religion is a law respecting and establishment of
religion - explain that works...
RT
fred
> fred wrote:
>
> --personal attacks (first half of the post) removed, skipped to substance--
My critiques about your lawyer like questions are very appropriate.
Snipping them out was merely a copout approach to not addressing them.
>
> > The bottom line is that section 1 of the 14th Amendment was made to put
> > limits on the extent that states could do (1)(a). But right off hand I
> > don't see any way that a state can make a law that does (1)(b) without
> > violating 14th Amendment prohibitions.
>
> The First Amendment prohibits the states from making three kinds of laws:
>
> (a) laws that respect an establishment of religion
> (b) laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion
> (c) laws that abridge free speech
Sigh. :^(
Nothing but denial about what basic reading skills would tell anybody
about the 1st Amendment of the federal BOR.
You are forcing the states into the 1st Amendment as this amendment
obviously prohibits Congress, and only Congress, from having certain
powers. The 1st Amendment doesn't even have the word states like the
10th Amendment does.
>
> There's nothing from the language of the First Amendment that suggests
> the free speech clause, the establishment clause, and the free exercise
> clause. There's no evidence from the text or history of the First
> Amendment that one clause creates "rights" and another clause merely
> "limits power." In the context of constitutional law, a "right" = a
> limit on power.
You are not only continuing to ignore the 10th Amendment but also the
fact that the BOR is more formally referred to as the federal BOR. The
1st Amendment of the federal BOR mentions only Congress with respect to
its prohibitions of government power. Because the 1st Amendment
doesn't also explicitly prohibit the states from having these powers,
the 10th Amendment automatically delegates these powers to the states.
Again, I won't deny that some tyrant state governments foolishly
misused their 10th Amendment powers by abridging the personal federal
rights of US citizens living in these states. The resulting social
unrest culminated in the Civil War. But the post Civil War 14th
Amendment put a stop to such abuses by making the personal freedoms
aspects of the federal BOR mandatory for the states.
But the 14th Amendment did not change how the BOR divides powers
between federal and state governments. As I've mentioned elsewhere,
this is evidenced by the fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't reference
the 10th Amendment in any way.
>
> > Again, to correct the pre-Civil War problem with the "independent"
> > states who regarded the federal BOR as optional, the post Civil War
> > 14th Amendment made recognizing the personal federal rights of US
> > citizens mandatory for the states.
>
> Again, how do you go about deciding what is a right and what is not? The
> form of the First Amendment is that there are three "types" of laws
> Congress cannot make (see above). The framers of the first eight
> amendments didn't use the word "right." They didn't call the free speech
> clause a "right" and the establishment clause a "separation of powers"
> issue. Basically you are just cherry-picking, saying "no law abrdiging
> free speech" is a right, but "no law respecting the establishment" is
> not a right. This is arbitrary.
The problem is that you've evidently been so brainwashed with
separationist distortions of the Constitution that you can no longer
make the distinction between politically correct interpretations of the
amendments and interpretations based on basic reading skills and common
sense.
Just so you know, "rights" is the word that I use to "abbreviate" the
term "privileges and immunities" in sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. But
don't continue ignoring that the personal rights, privileges and
immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and the Constitution's
division of powers between federal and state governments are different
issues.
Rich Travsky
> > Since the 1st Amendment prohibited only the federal government from
> > addressing religion, the 10th Amendment automatically delegated this
> > power uniquely to the states. The bottom line is that President
> > Eisenhower should have campaigned for the states to officially
> > incorporate "under God" into the Pledge instead of having Congress make
> > the law.
> >
>
> thought that until Newdow came along. Certainly, nobody thought that in
> 1954.
1954? Awareness is much better now.
RT
Bob LeChevalier
>But the 14th Amendment did not change how the BOR divides powers
>between federal and state governments.
Actually it did. The last paragraph of the 14th grants a new power to
Congress. The first paragraph removed powers from the states.
>As I've mentioned elsewhere,
>this is evidenced by the fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't reference
>the 10th Amendment in any way.
It doesn't reference *any* amendment. It amends the constitution as a
whole, including the 10th.
>> Again, how do you go about deciding what is a right and what is not? The
>> form of the First Amendment is that there are three "types" of laws
>> Congress cannot make (see above). The framers of the first eight
>> amendments didn't use the word "right." They didn't call the free speech
>> clause a "right" and the establishment clause a "separation of powers"
>> issue. Basically you are just cherry-picking, saying "no law abrdiging
>> free speech" is a right, but "no law respecting the establishment" is
>> not a right. This is arbitrary.
>
>The problem is that you've evidently been so brainwashed with
>separationist distortions of the Constitution that you can no longer
>make the distinction between politically correct interpretations of the
>amendments and interpretations based on basic reading skills and common
>sense.
I'm more interested in interpretations based on law, since legal sense
and not common sense is what matters.
>Just so you know, "rights" is the word that I use to "abbreviate" the
>term "privileges and immunities" in sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Unfortunately, the incorporation of the BoR to the states is NOT based
on the "privileges and immunities" clause, but on the "due process"
clause.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law"
No state can deprive any person of liberty from government actions
respecting religion.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|To illustrate, by an absurdly extreme example, why I think that
>:|the fact that "the 14th Amendment isn't going anywhere", nor
>:|does the current interpretation of it seem likely to change
>:|soon, to be two very Good Ideas indeed.
>:|
>:|
>:|-- cary
The 14th Amendment, no and the current interpretation, probably not EXCEPT
in the case of the Establishment Clause
You have for sure one, maybe two current USSC justices that want to prevent
the Est Clause from being applied against the states.
There is no doubt Thomas wants to se that happen and there is evidence
that Scalia might join him in that.
What isn't known is where the new guy stands on that today, tomorrow a year
from now 5 years from now and so on. Nor does anyone know for sure where
Kennedy would on that. Once upon a time he did support strict church state
separation sometimes but doesn't seem to anymore.
Baby teflon Bush gets another chance and if Stevens or some of the others
can't outlast Bush of the steady run of republican Presidents they will
get other chances to find the needed others.
So don't assume for a second that one is safe, it may not be
This is target #1 of the radical religious right, pry the Establishment
Clause from state application.
In this day and age with the far right in control of the government I don't
take anything for granted
Patrick Vallely
> Again, I won't deny that some tyrant state governments foolishly
> misused their 10th Amendment powers by abridging the personal federal
> rights of US citizens living in these states. The resulting social
> unrest culminated in the Civil War. But the post Civil War 14th
> Amendment put a stop to such abuses by making the personal freedoms
> aspects of the federal BOR mandatory for the states.
The key question is: what are the "personal freedom aspects"? How do you
go about determining what parts of the BOR are about personal freedom
and what are not? Where can we find a list of these "personal freedoms"
if not the BOR? You have yet to offer any explanation about how one goes
about making these determinations, merely saying that the "no law
abridging free speech" creates personal freedom, where "no law
respecting an establishment" does not create personal freedom. Please
enlighten us to the logic? Oh what's the point, you're just going to
edit out this paragraph, not answer this question, and call me an
atheist for asking it, because anyone who asks tough questions must be a
brainwashed atheist, right?
> But the 14th Amendment did not change how the BOR divides powers
> between federal and state governments. As I've mentioned elsewhere,
> this is evidenced by the fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't reference
> the 10th Amendment in any way.
The Fourteenth Amendment dramatically changed the division of powers
between federal and state government. Did you forget about the Civil
War? The whole war was fought over "state's rights," and the state's
rights side of the war, the south, lost.
--personal attack edited out--
fred
> fred wrote:
>
> > Again, I won't deny that some tyrant state governments foolishly
> > misused their 10th Amendment powers by abridging the personal federal
> > rights of US citizens living in these states. The resulting social
> > unrest culminated in the Civil War. But the post Civil War 14th
> > Amendment put a stop to such abuses by making the personal freedoms
> > aspects of the federal BOR mandatory for the states.
>
> The key question is: what are the "personal freedom aspects"? How do you
> go about determining what parts of the BOR are about personal freedom
> and what are not? Where can we find a list of these "personal freedoms"
> if not the BOR? You have yet to offer any explanation about how one goes
> about making these determinations, merely saying that the "no law
> abridging free speech" creates personal freedom, where "no law
> respecting an establishment" does not create personal freedom. Please
> enlighten us to the logic? Oh what's the point, you're just going to
> edit out this paragraph, not answer this question, and call me an
> atheist for asking it, because anyone who asks tough questions must be a
> brainwashed atheist, right?
Although I think that you are deliberately trying to keep the dust
stirred to confuse the issue to try to preserve the lie about absolute
church and state separation, one way to identify the personal freedoms
aspects of the BOR is to consider the arguments of the accused. For
example, Gideon v Wainwright shows the accused arguing that his 6th
Amendment right to legal counsel via the 14th Amendment was violated.
"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
>
> > But the 14th Amendment did not change how the BOR divides powers
> > between federal and state governments. As I've mentioned elsewhere,
> > this is evidenced by the fact that the 14th Amendment doesn't reference
> > the 10th Amendment in any way.
>
> The Fourteenth Amendment dramatically changed the division of powers
> between federal and state government. Did you forget about the Civil
> War? The whole war was fought over "state's rights," and the state's
> rights side of the war, the south, lost.
Where are you coming from? I've been repeatedly mentioning the Civil
War! The 14th Amendment can hardly be discussed without mentioning the
Civil War.
Also, you're simply not being honest with yourself about the 14th
Amendment changing the division of powers. How can the 14th Amendment
dramatically change the division of powers between federal and state
governments and not mention the 10th Amendment? The bottom line is
that the 14th Amendment doesn't address the division of powers at all.
SHOW ME which words in section 1 of the 14th Amendment dramatically
changed the division of powers between federal and state governments:
"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."
The division of powers aspect of the Constitution seems to have taken
you completely by surprise. Your tunnel vision concerning perpetuating
the lie about absolute church and state separation as it pertains to
the establishment clause has really crippled your objectivity.
>
> --personal attack edited out--
Patrick Vallely
(1) The question was, how does one go about discovering the "personal
freedom aspects" of the BOR? All you did is cherry-pick one and call it
a personal freedom. That response merely begs the question of why.
fred
To discover the personal freedoms aspects of the BOR, simply read it.
By analogy, you are essentially arguing that it is necessary to seance
certain spirits who will give you special insights to the "hidden"
meanings of the BOR, particularly to the "profound mysteries" of the
establishment clause. But as I've mentioned many times before,
Jefferson warned about people like you:
"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
You are wallowing in the "metaphysical subtleties" of the BOR because
that's the only way that you can continue to deceive yourself and
anybody who is listening to you concerning your lame assertions about
the establishment clause and the division of powers.
Patrick Vallely
You have said the "Congress shall make no law...abridging free speech"
language creates a "federal freedom" while "Congress shall make no
law...respecting an establishment of religion" does not create a federal
freedom. I read the First, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and see no
grounds to distinguish the two prohibitions.
The "hidden" "special insights" method seems to be yours. By allegedly
"reading," determine that some of the clauses of the BOR count as
"freedoms," and others do not, but fail to reveal how such a distinction
is made. The Bill of Rights does not use the word "freedom" or "right,"
so if reading does not answer the following question, perhaps you can
try? How did you decide that the prohibition on laws abridging free
speech constitutes a "freedom," but the prohibition on laws respecting
an establishment of religion does not?
fred
SHOW ME where I have said these things. Given the way that you like to
twist words and put words into my mouth, it's going to be interesting
to see what you're basing your assertion about me on.
>
> The "hidden" "special insights" method seems to be yours. By allegedly
> "reading," determine that some of the clauses of the BOR count as
> "freedoms," and others do not, but fail to reveal how such a distinction
> is made. The Bill of Rights does not use the word "freedom" or "right,"
> so if reading does not answer the following question, perhaps you can
> try? How did you decide that the prohibition on laws abridging free
> speech constitutes a "freedom," but the prohibition on laws respecting
> an establishment of religion does not?
You evidently cannot stand the thought of people finding out that not
only do basic reading skills tell us that the 10th Amendment delegated
the power to address religion uniquely to the states since the 1st
Amendment prohibited this power only to the federal government, but
that the 14th Amendment didn't change how the Constitution divides
Patrick Vallely
I had asked you the following question (labeled 1(b)): "Is there
anything in the federal constitution or its amendments that prevents a
state from passing a law abridging free speech?"
Your answer:
"I don't see any way that a state can make a law that does (1)(b)
without violating 14th Amendment prohibitions."
Right above you say that you can see no way that a state could pass a
law abridging free speech without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
So now my question is:
Why is it impermissible for states to pass a law "abridging free speech"
but permissible for states to pass a law "respecting the establishment
of religion"?