Ron Paul, Champion of the Constitution
Kade,
I have argued hear that his amendment is reactionary, and it obviously, to me and others, was made to "clarify" what 200 years of judicial process has found against establishment.
What specific power are you claiming Paul's Amendments would give to government that you object to?
The amendment is unnecessary, as the first amendment already protects the expression of religion, and as the courts have found, to keep in constant with the establishment clause, your right to expression stops only at the joining of your duty in the state, when you are employed or are in acting orders from the tax funded, people elected state.
Ok, a persons right to endorse religious beliefs end when acting as an agent of government. I'd agree. How does the proposed Amendment change this?
What reason is there for this amendment? If you argue that expression has always meant that the state should allow teachers to lead their students in prayer, I would argue that our progressive view of tolerance and diversity in this case defies that simple and questionable freedom of enforcement for the freedom FROM religious encouragement, especially even when impressed upon by tax paid officials.
I don't believe it is the place of Government Employees to tell my kid what religious, political, or even what moral, beliefs to have. Teaching my kid how to choose what to believe is my job.
So it seems the only way you could interpret the proposed Amendment to allow government paid teachers to lead students in prayer at school would be to claim government employees interacting with the public as official government representitives, are not part of government.
Seems to me you've already discounted this interpretation: "your right to expression stops only at the joining of your duty in the state, when you are employed or are in acting orders from the tax funded, people elected state."
The wording is actually not about allowance, it is in general restrictive, and it would effectively put into question the Lemon test.
The Lemon Test is for judging law. I don't see how the proposed amendment protects laws passed by the State. It protects individuals. Laws that violate establishment can still be struck down.
This is a violation of the first amendment, and I have been extremely vocal in protecting the right of the students and the student groups in these cases...
AND so has the ACLU, for which I am a member (Oh no not a liberty lover!)............................
...............And many, many others... you guys are making the wrong kinds of enemies with the continued assault on this definition of Freedom..
Keep pushing.
And the cases continue. Those who would interprete Separation of Church and State to mean restricting Free Exercise of private citizens continue to pass and enforce laws. Currently in my State, there is a case similar to Board of Education v. Mergens and Good News Club v. Milford Central School, this time accusing student wanting to form a Christian group at school of discrimination against non-Christians.
And the battles will continue as long as there are people who can find some form of Free Exercise they object to. And the danger that eventually precendent will be achieved will continue as long as the meaning of the First Amendment can be twisted by case law to mean things it obviously doesn't.
It amounts to "any state" must not infringe on the constitutional right of teachers and officials to lead their class in their type of prayer, even if your tax payer money pays these folks, even if you can't change your school because of districting...
Nice.
No. As it seems both you and I already agree, State employed teachers, while interacting with students at school, are to be interpreted as part of the State.
Let's look again:
"H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."
Seems clear to me. The
People have the right to Free Expression, and the
State is restricted from establishing religion.
Apparently, I am the last person here that I can see who needs a history lesson... but if you think I'm missing something, enlighten me please.
Then I assume you understand, unless the Federal Government is granted the authority to do a thing in the Constitution, it doesn't legally have the right to do it. That right is retained by the People or the States.
You are not converting someone to limited government, you are trying to convince me that we need a re-clarification of the first amendment and the findings of the courts against state enforced establishment.
I think you're understanding me here. While I'm opposed to Paul's Amendment, I strongly believe we need a re-clarification of the whole Constitution. The First Amendment would be a good start. And while I'm against Government Establishment of Religion, I object to Federal authority being imposed on the States where no such Authority was granted in the Constitution.
Sadly, I agree with you and at the same time believe that this was a necessary evil. In cases that demand the federal government enforce the states to protect freedoms, I support the federal government. This was because states were abusing, openly and without warrant, constitutional rights. It was decided upon, EXTREMELY early, even by the unfavorable court before the 19th century, that the establishment clause applies to the States as well... If you think it doesn't that is a different argument. IF it does, then the federal government has the right to step in in order to "untangle" any power the church might have over that state... Tax payers money to church related activities is establishment. State officials, like teachers and principals, preaching to homeroom, is establishment.
I'd like you to cite the cases so I can read them. But regardless, where the meaning of the Constitution can be shown clearly and unambigiously, it is the duty of the court to obey it. Instead, we have courts setting precedents in conflict with the clear meaning of the text:
First 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.
The Amendment, as passed, clearly and specificly applies to the Federal Government. When case law conflicts with the Constitution, which is in error? When courts high enough to overule a precedent continue to follow doctrines, interpretations, and case law in clear conflict with the Constitution, I'd say it's time for a re-clarification of the Constitution and an overturning of precedents. I'd imagine, if you support Federal Authority over the States in the area of religion, you'd be supporting Paul's proposal. Since, unfortunately, seems to me Paul's proposal is to amend the Constitution to agree with the case law.
Is it correct for people to use the courts to interpret the Constitution in ways that contradict it's clear meaning when it serves thier purpose? Or is the correct method to amend the Constitution to say what people want it to?
How can we expect the Constitution protect us if we establish what it actually says doesn't matter?
I disagree. This is the ultimate and most debatable opinion yet... it all comes down to this...
Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion. The house did not pass it...
Text rejected by the Representitives of the People is not law. Obviously they found Madison's first draft objectionable, so it isn't the First Amendment. I've already posted the actual text of the First Amendment, and it's meaning seems clear to me.
Ironically, part of the decision came when the courts ruled to outlaw Polygamy. Reynolds vs. US, gave us the clearest view of the federal ruling on what constitutes establishment and the states abilities to foster those establishments...
Jefferson drafted a bill against the court finding... rightfully so... It was an example of over judicial boundaries in my opinion...
You'll have to show me how Reynolds v. US applies to the States. Utah was not a State, but a Territory of the US. The case was not about protection from State laws, but about protection from laws passed by the United States Congress. Which clearly falls under the First Amendment.
In any case, when case law based on the text of the Constitution directly conflicts with the clear meaning of the actual words in the text, is the problem with the text? Or the interpretation?
The test came with the Constitution of Massachusetts, in a period literally known as "The Establishment of Religion in Massachusetts". Connecticut also had an establishment of religion...
It would have to be decided here if the establishment clause extended to the states, the abuse was apparent then, as it should equally be now, and the idea was born that the first amendment applies to the states as well, it goes both ways my friend... if a state can establish religion, because it is not congress, it can also bar religion completely.... Since congress has no hand in the state law, you could not hold the state accountable for violating any constitutional rights...
While I agree no State can have the power to Establish Religion, it is not because of the First Amendment. There is no Federal power over the States granted in the Constitution to prevent Establishment in the States. It is the citizens of the State who hold that power.
The first amendment had to be expanded in these test cases to include the state governments establishment of religion. Otherwise, a state can also simply BAN religion altogether (disagree, read the first amendment again).
Here is the problem. If the First Amendment needed to be expanded, it was not because the meaning wasn't clear. It was because that meaning conflicted with what some people wanted it to say. The proper course of action for those that disagree with the text is not to ignore what the clear meaning and intent of the First Amendment. It should be to amend the Constitution, which is what Paul was proposing.
The fourth amendment firmly established the bill of rights as a stamp on the States, no states can deny the rights in the bill of rights now...
No the Fourth Amendment states the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. The Amendments you refer to were a response to former slaves being prevented from voting. Nowhere are the words "the Bill of Rights" found in the text of them. As I already stated:
"But Supreme Court precedents have twisted the meaning of Amendments, turning the Bill of Right from it's original purpose into a list of areas of Federal Authority over the States."
And you agreed:
"Sadly, I agree with you and at the same time believe that this was a necessary evil. In cases that demand the federal government enforce the states to protect freedoms, I support the federal government."
Do you support the Rule of Law?
and that is good law... including establishment. Local tax payer money, state tax payer money... any tax payer money mixed with any religion is establishment.
I agree that there should be no government Establishment, and government money should not be used for the purpose of supporting any religion. I never claimed otherwise.
You have all failed in your arguments, but keep pushing please.
I think you've misunderstood me. Please point out which of my arguments have failed. To me, the valid points you made were against arguements I didn't post. Looks like you're dabating alot of different people at once, maybe you've confused who made which arguments.
