Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|On May 10, 6:12 am, buckeye <buckeye...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >The First Amendment states only that
>:|> >:|> >Congress shall make no laws respecting (meaning: "related to")
a
>:|> >:|> >religious establishment--that's it.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|That interpretation of "respecting" makes no sense either in the
>:|> >:|historical context of the amendment or common sense.
>:|>
>:|> I would be curious to see what you base the above on.
>:|>
>:|> What historical context?
>:|> Whose and what common sense?
>:|
>:|If "respecting" means "related to", then Congress (and by extension
>:|the federal government) can not prevent the states from declaring a
>:|religion - thus nullifying Everson (Everson is "related to"
>:|religion). But of course, Madison wasn't worried about laws "related
>:|to" religion, but rather laws that "honored" religion.
>:|
>:|Josh Rosenbluth
Everson was a accommodationist victory. It was decided under the "child
benefit theory."
The value of Everson was not in the ruling but rather in the rule of law
that was stated (but not used in the ruling), that it defined for the
first
time in legal history the Establishment Clause.
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to sup****t any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in
the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Some at the time, and still do, claimed the above was dicta.
The USSC made quite clear in
MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
"This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and
tax-sup****ted public school system to aid religious groups to spread their
faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in
Everson
v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 . There we said: 'Neither a state nor
the
Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid
one
religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. 6
Neither
can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing
religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance.
No
tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to sup****t any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form
they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state nor [333
U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church
and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S., at page 511 of 67 S.Ct. The
majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from
the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First
Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of
separation between Church and State. They disagreed as to the facts shown
by the record and as to the proper application of the First Amendment's
language to those facts."
and
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
"In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303-304, we said:"
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states a
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus, the Amendment
embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first
is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
Later, we decided Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, and said
this
at pages 330 U. S. 15 and 330 U. S. 16:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess
a
belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for
entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to sup****t any religious activities or institutions, whatever they
may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between church and State.'"
While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not
challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as
being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation
too
narrowly to the facts of that case. Not long afterward, in Illinois ex
rel.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, we were urged to repudiate
as dicta the above-quoted Everson interpretation of the scope of the First
Amendment's coverage. We declined to do this, but instead strongly
reaffirmed what had been said in Everson, calling attention to the fact
that both the majority and the minority in Everson had agreed on the
principles declared in this part of the Everson opinion. And a concurring
opinion in McCollum, written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and joined by the
other Everson dissenters, said this:
"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular
reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to
forbid an 'established church.' . . . We renew our conviction that"
"we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that
complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state
and best for religion. [Footnote 8]"
that was not the case but was, in fact, black letter law, rule of law,
etc
*****************************************************************************
The background to Everson was
JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states,
declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
feedom
of speech, or of the press ....'"
The above rules can easily fit under just about any definition of
"respecting" one wants to use.
From another thread to another person:
s****hawk <s****h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|
>:|Why don't you tell us what "respecting" meant at the time the
>:|constitution was accepted by all the states. Then you can tell use
>:|what the word "an" means. As I read the language, Congress can make
>:|no laws respecting "an establishment of religion," i.e., a religious
>:|establishment, any religious establishment, whether it's the Catholic
>:|Church or David Koresh's cult.
>:|
Ok
SEE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/2a593b14239de302
http://tinyurl.com/63322o
****************************************************************
I frequently read your legal replies to the likes of Franks, as well as
others others and usually enjoy them. However, nothing personal but I
have
noted that we differ on the historical side of the topic at times. I
have
so replied to you on that a few times.
So with regards to Madison, and "respecting" and so on I will go with my
own research and study of the past 14 years and with the do***entaion and
scholars that you will find in the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/2a593b14239de302
http://tinyurl.com/63322o
I will be more than happy to discuss them or we can just agree to disagree
on this.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
