Join The Debate!

Correction:

We need to keep this in mind during the primaries. I'm not convinced that every Republican candidate would appoint originalist justices.

This is why...

...I support the ACLJ -- and why you folks should as well.

But the author's right: this court's hardly a full-fledged bastion of conservatism or strict constructionism. That NYC's board of ed can still allow all religious expressions EXCEPT for nativity scenes, proves this current Supreme Court does not yet have a full grasp on what our founding fathers intended. (They ignored the appeal on this.)

I am also concerned about a case involving two Christian women and two lesbians, all Oakland city employees. The two lesbians sent out emails to fellow county/city employees to support some gay-related activities. The Christian women figured they could do something similar, inviting people who shared their views to get together and fellowship. And this involved NO GAY BASHING. Yet, one of the lesbians complained, saying that she felt excluded. And the Oakland city whatever (I don't have all the details here) said that the Christian women needed to discontinue their emailings -- but the lesbians could continue. The Christian women sued.

The sick & twisted 9th Circuit *UPHELD* the suit, saying that the Christian material bordered on hate speech, even tho there was no gay-bashing to be found. The case has been appealed and may or may not be taken by the SC. So we'll see just how fair and faithful this Court really is.

(Maybe the Christian women should've complained about the lesbian material making THEM feel left out and offended. That *ANYONE* can accomplish so much on hurt feelings says a lot about America today, unfortunately.)

Oops! Mistake...

Meant to say *OVERTURNED* the suit in my first post. Silly me.

None sense

Apparently you never studied American history. I suggest you study the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Then a reading of the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments by James Madison would cure you of your historical and religious ignorance.

Like most religious reichies though, I doubt you have the courage to find out how wrong your pastor and talking heads are.

History doesn't bite though. Forgetting it does.

Gonzo's reading list...

... leaves off the actual text of the First Amendment itself:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Forgetting history doesn't bite nearly as much as letting leftists (like yourself) revise it.

Gonzo needs a lesson in law and history

Okay, Gonzo, I studied all this in grad school, law school and seminary. Let's take a look at what you think my pastor doesn't know.

First of all, Thomas Jefferson wasn't in America when the Constitution was written; he was our ambassador to France. So he did not take part in the creation of the original Constitution. Then he was Secretary of State under George Washington when the First Congress proposed to the Bill of Rights (including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment)in 1789, and was not involved when the states ratified it in 1791. Therefore he was not involved in writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights, so studying his writings are pointless in determining what the Framers intended by the Establishment Clause. Jefferson is not a constitutional authority.

Second, Madison's Remonstrance was a countermeasure to Patrick Henry's bill to allow for local church support. The Remonstrance cannot effectively be examined without first studying Henry's proposal, which we don't have time for today.

Instead, let's just understand the Establishment Clause. The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prevent the national government from establishing one single church or denomination as America's national religion, with financial support from the federal government, and the possibility (as happened in England in the previous century) of requiring clergy to have government licenses. The English government would only approve clergy with certain theological and political beliefs, and would issue fines or even imprison unlicensed ministers. The Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the government from setting up such a national system, where one religion would be favored and other denominations would be oppressed.

In fact, it wasn't even incorporated against the states until 1947 (in Everson v. Board, which also is the case that created the wall of separation between church and state as a matter of law). Until then, states and local government could actually have a full religious establishment, supporting one religion and discriminating against others.

It you want early authorities on religion in the Constitution, study Justice Joseph Story, whose constitutional commentaries where the leading authority until the 1900s. In it he makes clear that the Establishment Clause is not designed to repress the Christian faith, nor to exclude faith from public settings. In fact, he wrote of the benefits of Christian morality to the nation and how its underlying moral philosophy impacts our laws and is good for our culture.

It was not until the 1960s that the Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Warren) started to use the Establishment Clause to secularize society. Everything we're dealing with along those lines now is a creation of the past 45 years, not the legacy of the Founding Fathers or almost two centuries of American history and law.

Those are the facts.

End in sight

The secular left has been working on this for 40 or 50 years, through the press, entertainment, and education. They have patiently been eroding our religious rights little by little. We, as a nation, have been too busy watching sports, American Idol, etc. to pay attention. They are just getting a little more bold as they see their goal hovering before them- all they need to do is get a Dem in the WH and they will have pulled it off. Some great posts here today.

Every person in America

Is protected from government powers in certain Inalienable Rights.

These Rights we all know as the Bill of Rights.

If individuals do not demand their rights be respected by government, then they have bowed the knee to ceding their God given Rights to some man.


No person in government or out of government is subject to any law that is passed by men to take some right away from that person.

The law would be an abuse of power and illegal that takes any persons rights away that have been recognized as an UNALEINABLE RIGHT.

I have the freedom to pray wherever and whenever I alone feel is decent and in order, self governored by the Liberty to respect others rights and not abuse this liberty.

No person who works for the public is passing a law that requires anyone else to pray if he/she prays, and they are not Congress either.

The 1st amendment limits one body of people in America.

Congress.

It does not limit me from praying anywhere at anytime and it is a right I will never give up to any man.

I will govern myself in this question, and will ever try and force any other to pray if I do, but they will not be the judge of my own God given Right to pray.

They will not be the judge of my freedom of speech, and prayer is speech.

I do not care what position he holds on this earth, my rights do not come from him, my rights come from God alone.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


The Founders placed into the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution these Rights for the Individual.

They are there to protect ME from the government.

They are not there to protect the government from me.


1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ts

I get it. Your point is that the ruling in Flast is bogus, since there was no law enacted to establish the tradition of religious displays, there was no standing to bring the case before the court in the first place. The plaintiff had no "standing", since no law existed to offend them, just a tradition. What a shame the Warren Court decided to allow the claim to be heard! Now we're stuck with a bad precedent based on a narrow, biased ruling in a case that should never have been allowed to be heard for the lack of proper "standing", not because the plaintiff lacked the required offendedness, but that there was never a law passed to cause them such offense.

Good argument! I wonder if the whole 45+ years history of decisions that grew out of Flast might be tossed if standing could be established to argue all these precedents' validity, and toss the whole lot of them! Conservative Commentator, . . what say ye? Could such standing be established? What would the premise be, and who might make such a claim, since the "Catch-22" would be that, no law was passed by congress here, either, . . just years of bad SCOTUS decisions piled atop the fallacy of Flast. Quite a conundrum, my friends!

I would say

That without a law for any legal interpretation to begin with, no decision can possibly stand.

Seems to scream it out to me.

What the Court ended up deciding was who has some unknown right to not get offended.

Lots of speech today offends me, but there is no law made against it.

Why would just certain ones among us get special rights that someones speech must be stopped cause they are offended?


Its a total collapse of all of our rights twhen that happens, and contradicts the 14th Amendment itself.

Equal rights under the law.
It is not equal protection when just certain ones have the right to not be offended

radlad

writes, "Did you CharlieS or Hitchhiker think w was gonna pull the excrement pulled of late?"

short answer, no. Let me defend him for a moment, if I may. The Harriet Miers thing, inexcusable. The immigration bill? The Bush I like would have secured the borders since he knows full well the threat we face. He would have opposed amnesty as rewarding lawbreakers. So why didn't he? Shameless politics but, with a good intention. He knows, perhaps better than anyone, how crucial it is to bring hispanics into the republican party. It may make the difference between winning in 08 or not. Ironic that pandering to the illegals could help maintain a conservative supreme court, huh? The blacks appear to be a lost cause unless we can force school choice on the communists and start educating them. The hispanics, with a high birth rate, are rapidly becoming the largest new force in American politics. If the republicans alienate them and they fall into the communist party in large numbers like the blacks, the republicans may not see power for a long time. I believe this represents his thinking on this particular issue.

clarification follow up

Much of what Stedes say is correct. It's always hard to know how much to say on something like a web post without writing a book.

Talent Scout is correct, however, that the prime mover on the Bill of Rights was Mason, not Madison or Jefferson. In fact, for a time Madison was adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, saying it was unnecessary because the federal government only had the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that therefore specific rights guarantees were unnecessary. In fact, he almost lost his first election to (this is interesting) James Monroe over this issue. Monroe ran against Madison for the First Congress. Monroe's top issue was a Bill of Rights. So Madison reversed himself on that issue, promised to push a Bill of Rights, and barely beat Monroe for the seat. Madison was then elected Speaker once he was in the House, and true to his word he pushed BOR. However, the content of BOR was more shaped by the objections of the Anti-Federalists than it was by Jefferson or Madison.

All that said, Talent Scout is completely wrong on another point.

The courts do not only interpret statutes. They interpret *law*. The "law" includes not just acts of Congress, which are called "statutes," but also regulations, executive orders, the English Common Law, and the Constitution itself, which is our highest *law*. See Article VI of the Constitution.

So the judicial power to interpret law includes the power to interpret the Constitution itself, including the First Amemndment. That is the whole point and holding of Marbury v. Madison (1803), which is the most important Supreme Court case ever.

And ironically, since Talent Scout likes to reference Jefferson, he'll be interested to know that this was actually the view that Jefferson also held and articulated in his correspondence with Madison. See Rutland, "Framing and Ratifying the First Ten Amendments," in The Framing and Ratifying of the Constitution, by Palladium Press, page 309. Jefferson said a BOR put a "legal check" in the hands of the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional government actions.

On a separate note to another post, despite my enormous respect for Ken Blackwell, he could never be appointed to the Supreme Court because he does not have a law degree. (He's a very well educated man, but his degrees do not include a J.D.)

But Ken Blackwell is a great leader, and I know we all welcome his voice to the public debate. America needs leaders like Secretary Blackwell.

The question, the opinion, the law

1. The question

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided.

Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

------------

2. The opinion

is . . . the opinion of the court,

That, by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the District of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years.

---------

3. The Written Law that guided the decision.

The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and, consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

The question, whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric had been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it rises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? Ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims who the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person," says the Constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support?

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as —, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall he made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

---------


Quote Judge Marshall:
, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;

------------------------
How much more so when the Court does not even have a law to begin with as a law against public prayer?


Congress has never passed any law for the court to decide, and the Court dang sure do not have the power of Congress to pass law.

This is fascinating!

TalentScout, and ConservativeCommentator have the goods today!

TS, if I interpret correctly, I could send my kid to a public school, and he could literally evangelize on the playground, . . or, more simply, just pray, if so moved, and other than disciplinary measures the school can impose, there is nothing they can prosecute directly! There simply is no "crime" in praying, which strikes me as a marvelous window for civil disobedience, should anyone want to dedicate themselves to it. It would be an expensive, consumptive crusade, fraught with peril, . . but gratifying in each success.

CC,

Thanks for squaring me on the J.D., . . I assumed incorrectly. Its funny, I never knew K.B. to be an attorney, but the style of this piece read like a true student of the law had written it, and suddenly I assumed a J.D. in Ken's background from it. Also, Ken's battle as SecState with the wallpapering from the legions of the left was probably a better education than most of the paperers recieved themselves, for all the ivy dollars they spent.

Truly, I think a Thompson/Blackwell ticket would work because it would bring center stage the achilles heel of the Ohio factor in the last election(s). As an Ohioan, I resent the idea that anyone in Ohio WOULD or COULD have control of the ballot system! We have a civility that allows for friends to disagree, and bipartisan pollworkers in every ward. I've been voting since '75, without any problems. Ken's defense of his office was not merely his duty, . . and his performance defending it was, "above and beyond!"

The point is, they both have closets to air, and the airing can prove quite favorable, in the long run! That's what primaries are for! Then, its all message, and I think Fred and Ken could be tremendously effective on the trail together! Talk about straight talk! Ah, . . well, JMOHO

It is clear

forefathers had no problem with religion (particularly Christianty)in the public square. The Constitution bears all sorts of religious language and was clearly based on Christian tenets. This country's history is replete with all sorts of symbols and culture based on Judeo-Christian values. It was taught in our schools. Americans had no problem with it. Why have liberals had to dismantle all of these symbols and values in (recent) history? Where do you think these symbols came from? That liberals deny that Christian values were never the foundation of this country is ludicrous, utterly incorrect and completely dishonest.

Constitution

One of the problems is that the Supremes have usurped the power to write legislation and to amend our Constitution anytime that five of the nine decide to do so. Enough cases have been decided that the precedents are in place. As liberals support this idea of a living document written with disappearing ink on Silly Putty, they fail to realize that those five out-of-control judges can at any time be conservatives who will rule what our national religion is to be. Their illegal legalized amendments to our Constitution could be justified as being in the public interest, just as the liberal judges have done for decades. http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

Evidently my point was missed...

I was not implying that the House of Representatives should host worship services every Sunday. I am saying that such was the practice in the early days of our country, and Thomas Jefferson clearly saw nothing wrong with the practice.

Talent Scout argues that Congress has passed no laws restricting religious freedom. At the moment, they are attempting to do so. The Fairness Doctrine is clearly an attempt to silence conservatives in the media - including those who are Christians. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Hate Crimes bill, if it becomes law, will be used against preachers who oppose homosexuality.

My point was, most people who talk about "separation of church and state" have no idea what the phrase actually means. Also, the principle is clearly not applied fairly. Churches are not supposed to endorse candidates, but liberal churches do on a regular basis. We are told that ministers should stay out of politics, yet the same people who tell us that look the other way regarding Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I believe in separation of church and state - AS TRADITIONALLY DEFINED. That is, the church and the state are to be autonomous entities.

Besides this

From the bible:
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

We also have:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It is totally unrighteous for any man to allow the illegal criminal minded God hater to force him to help overthrow the nations Foundational Law and allow that man to make him disobedient to God.

On July 2, 1776 Samuel Adams closed the signing of the Declaration of Independence with these words:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting sun, may His Kingdom come."

Samuel Adams was a devout Christian who along with the other Founding Fathers stood on the principle that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.


Galatians 1
1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.


I could go on and on endlessly with this theme, as history and the bible is full of the information what to do and say in the face of evil rulers, as America has today.

Lex, Rex

Samuel Rutherford
(1644)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the lawfulness of resistance in the matter of the king's unjust invasion of life and religion, we offer these arguments.
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/rutherford.html

I love to reason

With any man who grabs ahold of an argument with reasonable cause.

So lets take a look together and remain united in the spirit of sound reasoning to reach a level of understanding one anothers liberty and freedom.


Nert writes: 11:48 PM
great stuff here today
But as an atheist, I have to get my two cents in.

TalentScout, I think you make a very common mistake when you quote Jefferson and assume he is talking about the Christian god.
-------

Not in the least do I do that, nor do I need to convince any man Jefferson limited the topic to my God or his.

He just said this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Jefferson was not trying to define any mans religion for that man, he just acknowledges that rights come from the Creator.
And left it up to each individual to say and believe in whomever he wanted to believe is the Creator.

TRUE religious Liberty.
Nor is the Founding Documents written for any religion, but is inclusive for ALL men's governing.The government of men, not their religion.

The Founding Documents are written for the government of men, not their salvation.
But Founded in Religious Liberty for all, or as you, no religion.

We have no law requiring any man to have religion, nor do we have any law requiring a religion to be Christian.
TRUE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.


(I will address you other comments in another post to keep this part shorter)

I have to leave

But will get back later and hope we can keep this topic going.

Just lost a response ......again, I have problems posting here at times and cannot find the cure, as yet

Nert Continues

And says:
Did I mention I'm an atheist? Well, I find it puzzling that there's any controversy over the phrase "or the free exercise thereof". Is there really anything to debate about that? That isn't crystal clear?
--------
talent scout replies

You must think it revelent for some reason.

It is totally irrevelent to the topic, same is I were to keep saying I am a Christian.

Facts are, we both have the liberty to define such issues for outselves.
I have seen no one but you that seems to have some problem over "or the free exercise thereof".
On this thread with the above.
I already know I am free to pray and believe and tha tis not subject to any earthly law.


-------

Nert writes:
That said, as an atheist (I'm sorry, did I neglect to disclose that?), I object to *any* religion in government. In particular I'm vehementy opposed to any legislation that essentially codifies that god is real. Take, for example... okay, I'm drawing a blank.


How about let us all just accept the 1st Amendment for what it says?

Debate IS OVER.

This says all that needs to be said.

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is no law that makes you believe and there is no law that says I cannot

Jefferson was not a deist

Deism
de·ism (de'iz'?m, da'-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
---------


Jefferson nor any of the Founders believed that man is governed by his reason alone and that God abandoned the universe after Creation.

The words of the Declaration of Independence shows this plainly, Jefferson wrote that it is God who ENTITLES man and is the giver of RIGHTS.

The opposite of what deism teaches.

The other proof Jefferson was not a deist is cause Thomas Paine was a deist and he was an outcast because he was one.

The Founders to a man rejected Paines beliefs and scorned him, Paine died a lonely man, two people came to his burial service.

Even his friend Benjamin Franklin told Paine he should not promote that belief as it will cause him trouble, it did.

No signer of the Declaration of Independence can possibly be a deist, when they rightfully say God is active by giving man his rights and is the entitler.

Franklin himself (said to be a deist, not true)
Believed the scripture... unless God builds the house they labor in vain, and God governs in the affairs of man.

That is NOT deism.

Deism rejects that and says man is govered by his reason alone.