Faithmouse
cartoon courtesy of Dan Lacey
Religion and State
Religion in Schools...
Court decisions on the question of congressional authority
to endorse religion are dependent on varying interpretations of law, but
the right of States to endorse and establish religion is an inarguable
Constitutional protection. -States' Liberty Party
"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or
to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General
Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808
Citizens and the Court...
The makeup of the "New
Deal" 1947-1948 Supreme Court may provide a window as to what brought about the
radical change in the nation's character.
A misapplied 1947
Supreme Court precedent prohibited religious activity in schools, even when
initiated at the request of parents, without concern for whether it had
even violated anyone's liberty or freedom of religious practice, and has
resulted in the criminalizing of religion sponsored by any institution supported
by the government.
What if principal Jim of Springfield
Public High School decided his students must all pray
at the first school bell, every morning?
What if parents Jill and Bob didn't
think that was smart and took it to court, all the way to the
U.S. Supreme court?
The Court unlawfully denied
religion from the States, when it applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Establishment Clause
Few men suspect, perhaps no man
comprehends, the extent of the support given to every virtue. No man perhaps is
aware how much our moral and social sentiments are fed from this fountain.
Legal Argument...
The Fourteenth Amendment, having created
no new powers excepting a due process extension to non-citizens and birthright
of citizenship, cannot be construed as a new law which gave the federal
government an authority to usurp the power of state government, for the federal
balance of powers between Washington and the States is, itself, a privilege or
immunity of United States citizens.
Thus, it would seem that the Slaughterhouse court got it right, but it's
interpretation of the privileges or immunities clause has the seemingly
well written and thought out phrase doing almost nothing whatsoever, leading
legal experts to doubt this interpretation by the Court, and besides, didn't the
amendment's authors want to extend Bill of Right protections to the separate
States?
If a Marxist were invited and honored at graduation ceremonies and Christian
students complained, would the Court offer them the same protections given their
adversaries? No, because Marxism is not protected by the Constitution.
"... men and women had been fined,
cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed"
What is important to us is the Dred Scott decision
affirmed that the Constitution gave the Court a power and duty to protect the
fundamental rights of citizens from oppressive state laws; eleven years before
the Civil Rights Fourteenth Amendment was written!
Recent Court Decisions...
A long string of ridiculous court decisions regulating and
prohibiting the free practice of religion in violation of the First, Tenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, have created legal precedents that belong in the funny
pages, not the nation's legal system.
The Lighter Side
(satire)...
The 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals in San Francisco outlawed the interstate freeway system after a lone
hiker proved that it violated his First Amendment right prohibiting Congress
from establishing religion.
Driver Claims 10th Amendment
Exemption from State Laws
I, John Doe, having been found guilty by Superior Court for the crime of
traveling 35 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, declare that my privileges as a
United States citizen were violated by the State.
Fearful of the uppity English grammar
they had earlier fled, settlers had insisted on the inclusion of the little
known Dialect Clause.
Might the Supreme Court be the jealous
son determined to construct his own immortal legacy?
The establishment
clause wasn't a fundamental right, but by applying the due process clause to it,
we made it one! That gave us justification to apply the due process clause
to it, and criminalize religion in the schools.
First Amendment and Congress...
The founding fathers prohibited Congress from
interfering in the religions of the States and citizens, to guarantee the free
exercise.
-
I cannot
see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a
prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school
children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of
our Nation....--Mr. Justice Stewart, Dissenting (ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET
AL., June 25, 1962)
A Sacramento man suing a
school for forcing his young daughter to know that her classmates are willingly
citing the ugly word "God", decided that "an" means "", or nothing, and
the federal 9th Circuit Court decided he was right.
