CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[Jazzhead]

Patrick Henry

Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii. . . . . . 

No one is doubting the piety of the founding fathers.   But their world was one of religious tyranny. From the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education:

The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy.  With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all these had from time to time persecuted Jews. . .

The genius of the First Amendment is that it both secures freedom of conscience while forbidding any government entanglement whatsoever with the "establishment" of religion.   That's far more than the lazy view that the Establishment Clause forbids an official state religion.   The government is not to tax religion or inhibit its exercise, subsidize religion, endorse religion or support it in any way.   Religion is, from the standpoint of government, strictly a matter of individual belief, not to be shackled and not to be supported with public funds.

From the dissenting opinion in Everson v. Board of Education:

Not simply an established church, but any law respecting an establishment of religion, is forbidden.   The Amendment was broadly, but not loosely, phrased.  It is the compact and exact summation of its author's [Madison's] views formed during his long struggle for religious freedom.  In Madison's own words characterizing Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, the guaranty he put on our national charter, like the bill he piloted through the Virgina Assembly, was " a Model of technical precision, and perspicuous brevity.  Madison could not have confused "church" and "religion", or "an established church" and "an establishment of religion"

The Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies.  Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships.  But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense.   It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.  In proof, the Amendment's wording and history unite with this Court's consistent utterances whenever attention has been fixed directly upon the question.

I suggest that anyone with an interest in this subject should read this opinion and the support for its view of the Establishment Clause found in its copious historical footnotes.   

[Jazzhead]

I've  read it.  The 'Separation of Church and State' crowd LOST the case.  I am amazed at you level of dishonesty in citing it as supporting your side.

Oh, bullshit.  But thanks for reading the case.   What did you think of the case's description of the historical support for the wall of separation?   

Both the majority and the minority in Everson agreed on the meaning of the Establishment Clause, although they differed on its application to the facts at hand.   That is the nature of appellate jurisdiction -  the SCOTUS can only rule with respect to specific factual disputes brought before it. 

But the bottom line is that the historical record shows that the Establishment Clause was a reaction not to religious piety but religious tyranny.    Religious freedom can thrive only when religion itself does not bear the imprimatur of government.   

[txradioguy]

I think that you are trying to establish that "separation of church and state" is common law.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "Common Law" as "the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions"

In In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, it was held that "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere. Wikipedia notes that:" The United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and more precisely defining broad statutory language but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law."

As further proof that the separation of church and state is not the law of the land, there are recent decisions that have broken down "the wall of separation"

1. In the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision and a related decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the “religious liberty” of employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control to female employees, in direct opposition to Federal law that came from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The Supreme Court based its decision on the supposed “religious freedom” of corporations.

2. The Supreme Court also decided, in the recent term, the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014). In that case, the Supreme Court refused to hold that prayers at town hall meetings violated the Establishment Clause.

3.  In 2014, in a dissent in the case of Elmbrook School District v. John Doe, which involved a public school graduation ceremony being held in a church, Justice Scalia held the position that “the First Amendment explicitly favors religion.”

And a guy who is much smarter than you or I had some pretty harsh opinions on "the wall":

4. "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." - Justice William Rehnquist

5. "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation" - Justice William Rehnquist

@kidd well there you have it.  This is settled.

Given that Jazzy believes that whatever the occupants of the 9 black robes in DC says IS law.

You've clearly pointed out case law where they support the argument that you and I and a few others have made regarding what the 1st Amendment says.

And they clearly believe in these cases that prayer in a government setting is perfectly acceptable and the mythical wall doesn't apply.

How possibly could Jazzy argue with the wisdom of the Black Robes...right?

[DiogenesLamp]

I suggest that anyone with an interest in this subject should read this opinion and the support for its view of the Establishment Clause found in its copious historical footnotes.

I notice you generally ignore the points I put forth,  and I can only conclude that this is because you realize they dismember your argument.   


For example,  if this was the intent in 1787,  why did it take 161 years for anyone to notice it?   

[TomSea]

A court case from 1947 hardly means it is originalist, constructionalist or what the Founding Fathers meant.

@DiogenesLamp  is correct, just saw his post in writing this.

[Cyber Liberty]

I notice you generally ignore the points I put forth,  and I can only conclude that this is because you realize they dismember your argument.   


For example,  if this was the intent in 1787,  why did it take 161 years for anyone to notice it?

Responding to inquiry is not his strong suit...

[Bigun]

Responding to inquiry is not his strong suit...

I suspect that is because he has no interest in honest dialog and simply wishes to push his liberal BS while distracting folks here from far more important matters!

[Jazzhead]

A court case from 1947 hardly means it is originalist, constructionalist or what the Founding Fathers meant.

@DiogenesLamp  is correct, just saw his post in writing this.

The SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction only;  it can make no grand pronouncements without a case before it.  For example, before Heller the SCOTUS touched on Second Amendment matters only a handful of times in 200 years.

The Everson case wasn't the first SCOTUS case to address the Establishment Clause; it is, however, instructive because it relies so heavily on the Founders' intentions (especially Madison's) in drafting the clause.   It deserves to be read an an antidote to the religionists here who think government entanglement with religion is Constitutional.

My question to DiogenesLamp is this - can you cite an earlier decision of the SCOTUS that adopts your view of the intent of the Establishment Clause?   

And again -  I do NOT worship the folks in black robes or view their pronouncements as sacrosanct.  But the SCOTUS DOES have the final word in interpreting the Constitution unless and until Congress acts to override it.  That Congress has never acted in any significant way to contradict the wall of separation makes it perfectly clear that such is the law of the land.   The government's sole role is to guarantee freedom of conscience, and not to otherwise support, endorse or subsidize any religion.   What baffles me is why that should be so controversial.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I suspect that is because he has no interest in honest dialog and simply wishes to push his liberal BS while distracting folks here from far more important matters!

He doesn't converse, he lectures.  Reminds me of a certain ex-President.

[txradioguy]

I notice you generally ignore the points I put forth,  and I can only conclude that this is because you realize they dismember your argument.   


For example,  if this was the intent in 1787,  why did it take 161 years for anyone to notice it?

Good question.

[DiogenesLamp]

My question to DiogenesLamp is this - can you cite an earlier decision of the SCOTUS that adopts your view of the intent of the Establishment Clause?   

Why do you constantly look to the Court's statements for guidance?   Can you not weigh facts on your own?   


The evidence abounds.  Here is an excerpt from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. 

Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

From the Pennsylvania Constitution ratified in 1790,  and just four years after the Constitutional Convention and in the Same City as the US Constitution was Written.  (Philadelphia.)   

Sect. IV. That no person, who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.

Maryland Constitution of 1777. 

XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, globes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever. And all acts of Assembly, lately passed, for collecting monies for building or repairing particular churches or chapels of ease, shall continue in force, and be executed, unless the Legislature shall, by act, supersede or repeal the same: but no county court shall assess any quantity of tobacco, or sum of money, hereafter, on the application of any vestrymen or church-wardens; and every encumbent of the church of England, who hath remained in his parish, and performed his duty, shall be entitled to receive the provision and support established by the act, entitled "An act for the support of the clergy of the church of England, in this Province," till the November court of this present year to be held for the county in which his parish shall lie, or partly lie, or for such time as he hate remained in his parish, and performed his duty.

[Jazzhead]

Again, DL,  read if you can the history cited in the Everson opinion.   The whole point of the Establishment Clause was to avoid the Christian bias inherent in those state constitutions.   For purposes of Federal law, there was to be NO religious tests for office and there could be NO law respecting the establishment of religion.   

To fully guarantee religious freedom, the state's authority to exercise religious tyranny was to be prohibited.  No endorsement,  no favoritism, no subsidization of religion.   

Again, what boggles me is why this isn't universally hailed as a good thing.  Why the hell do conservatives want the state entangled with religion?   And, just as crucial, why the hell do religious conservatives want religion entangled with the state?   

[INVAR]

Again, what boggles me is why this isn't universally hailed as a good thing.  Why the hell do conservatives want the state entangled with religion?   And, just as crucial, why the hell do religious conservatives want religion entangled with the state?

Because godless agenda -pushers like yourself are busy using the State to prohibit the free exercise thereof and using court rulings to lecture us of the supremacy of your stupid and moronic views about what you insist the Constitution says - when nothing in it supports your argument.  You have to keep running back to court rulings and judgments in order to make a bogus case that hands the state the power to prohibit our free exercise of religion, ban it, and punish those who refuse to surrender it.

You are an enemy of everything we believe in.

[Jazzhead]

He doesn't converse, he lectures.  Reminds me of a certain ex-President.

It's tough to "converse" with folks who repeat the same mantra no matter what I say - he's a liberal, he's a false flag, he's evil, he's the devil incarnate, and the latest - he's not interested in "honest dialogue."

Bullshit. 

Attacking the messenger with labels and slurs is not conducive to "conversation" or "dialogue".  I've avoided the personal in this thread and stuck to the topic at hand.   And there have been a number of substantive posts in response, once one slogs through the bovine excrement.   

[Jazzhead]

You are an enemy of everything we believe in.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

It's tough to "converse" with folks who repeat the same mantra no matter what I say - he's a liberal, he's a false flag, he's evil, he's the devil incarnate, and the latest - he's not interested in "honest dialogue."

Bullshit. 

Attacking the messenger with labels and slurs is not conducive to "conversation" or "dialogue".  I've avoided the personal in this thread and stuck to the topic at hand.   And there have been a number of substantive posts in response, once one slogs through the bovine excrement.   

You give arguments.  You ignore counter arguments.  That's not "debating," that's "lecturing," and it won't get you good responses.

[INVAR]

It's tough to "converse" with folks who repeat the same mantra no matter what I say - he's a liberal, he's a false flag, he's evil, he's the devil incarnate, and the latest - he's not interested in "honest dialogue."

Bullshit. 

Attacking the messenger with labels and slurs is not conducive to "conversation" or "dialogue".  I've avoided the personal in this thread and stuck to the topic at hand.   And there have been a number of substantive posts in response, once one slogs through the bovine excrement.   

As stated, you do not 'dialogue' at all.  You lecture and drive your insipid agenda - no matter the arguments that counter your bogus claims.

Your own posts and words to this board indict and condemn you pal.  Cyber Liberty is exactly correct in noting that fact about you.

[Jazzhead]

  You lecture and drive your insipid agenda - no matter the arguments that counter your bogus claims.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.  "Demonization" of one's adversary has become a cliché - but you do so literally. 

My "bogus" view of the Establishment Clause is backed by Court decisions and evidence of the intent of the Founders.   Why should I address arguments you've pulled out of your ass?   

[INVAR]

"Demonization" of one's adversary has become a cliché

That would be due the fact your own words and posting history indicts you to the claims we assert you are.

My "bogus" view of the Establishment Clause is backed by Court decisions and evidence of the intent of the Founders.   Why should I address arguments you've pulled out of your ass?

The only ass-pulling of bogus Leftist/Secular bullshit lectured as fact, is what you spew here on this board daily.  Your bogus view of the 1st Amendment has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but the secular-Left talking points of false argumentation you pulled out of your ass by multiple members who have adroitly shown your arguments to be bullshit.

[Smokin Joe]

The SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction only;  it can make no grand pronouncements without a case before it. 

Only half true. There are cases where the SCOTUS has primary jurisdiction, which is what it was for.

Article III Section 2 Constitution of the United States.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

The SCOTUS can make grand pronouncements until the cows come home, but they only have weight if there is a ruling on a case before them, and only the specific matters of that case. Until recently, that did not include rewriting legislation, a usurpation of Congressional authority.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, DL,  read if you can the history cited in the Everson opinion.   The whole point of the Establishment Clause was to avoid the Christian bias inherent in those state constitutions.

So you are telling me that States which had  just  placed explicitly Christian requirements into their own state constitutions,    decided to ratify a Constitution that would remove those requirements?   

That does not seem reasonable.   

Again, what boggles me is why this isn't universally hailed as a good thing.  Why the hell do conservatives want the state entangled with religion?   And, just as crucial, why the hell do religious conservatives want religion entangled with the state?

You are oversimplifying the motivation of others.   It is more complex than you make it out to be.   I'll take but one example for the time being.   


I am against slavery.   I consider it wrong,  and we should not tolerate it.    This does not mean that I agree with the manner in which this goal was achieved.   In fact I consider the manner in which it was achieved to be a complete bastardization of the legitimate process. 


So too do I view this religious argument.    Judges of the Federal government lied about the original intent of the first amendment,  and used the power at their command to force it on the populace. 

Now perhaps having religion separated from Government is a good thing,  as you claim,   but overturning the will of the people for their own good,  and through an illegitimate process,  is most definitely not a good thing.   


If the result was not accomplished through the correct process,  it is illegitimate.    Whether it's goal was worthy or not is immaterial to the fact that they did not gain the consent of the people to establish this new condition,   they imposed it on us without our consent.   

[Jazzhead]

  Your bogus view of the 1st Amendment has been repeatedly shown to be nothing but the secular-Left talking points of false argumentation you pulled out of your ass by multiple members who have adroitly shown your arguments to be bullshit.

My "bogus view" is shared by the Supreme Court, and the Congress which has taken no meaningful steps to contradict it.   I've always known you to be a sucker for mythology, on this issue as well as others.

[Bigun]

So you are telling me that States which had  just  placed explicitly Christian requirements into their own state constitutions,    decided to ratify a Constitution that would remove those requirements?   

That does not seem reasonable.   






You are oversimplifying the motivation of others.   It is more complex than you make it out to be.   I'll take but one example for the time being.   


I am against slavery.   I consider it wrong,  and we should not tolerate it.    This does not mean that I agree with the manner in which this goal was achieved.   In fact I consider the manner in which it was achieved to be a complete bastardization of the legitimate process. 


So too do I view this religious argument.    Judges of the Federal government lied about the original intent of the first amendment,  and used the power at their command to force it on the populace. 

Now perhaps having religion separated from Government is a good thing,  as you claim,   but overturning the will of the people for their own good,  and through an illegitimate process,  is most definitely not a good thing.   


If the result was not accomplished through the correct process,  it is illegitimate.    Whether it's goal was worthy or not is immaterial to the fact that they did not gain the consent of the people to establish this new condition,   they imposed it on us without our consent.

 

[txradioguy]

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.  "Demonization" of one's adversary has become a cliché - but you do so literally. 

No the pot and kettle moment is someone who constantly bleats about Christian Bigots while complaining about demonization from others.

My "bogus" view of the Establishment Clause is backed by Court decisions and evidence of the intent of the Founders.   Why should I address arguments you've pulled out of your ass?

There are also other decisions more recent than the 70 year old ones you cite...made by the same SCOTUS you point to that back up the original intent...not the 20th century interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

Going by your current belief that the SCOTUS has the final say...it would seem like a ruling in 2003 or 2007 trumps the 1940''s and 1960's misinterpretations you're so desperately clinging to.

[DiogenesLamp]

My "bogus" view of the Establishment Clause is backed by Court decisions and evidence of the intent of the Founders.   

You keep ignoring my point that these were "Roosevelt"  appointees that did this.   Prior to Roosevelt stacking the courts with Liberal Kook judges,  nobody ever found these ideas in the Constitution.   You actually have to ignore a lot of the historical truth to even attempt to sell this "separation of Church and State"   argument.   

The US Congress used to fund bibles and preachers back in the 1820s or so.   Presumably they knew the intent of the first amendment because many of the framers of it were still alive back then,  and none of them objected to Congress funding religious education among the Indians.