The Lie of Separation of
Church and State and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpation of Power
Freedom Outpost – Publius Huldah
– 3/11/2013
Publius Huldah lays out in detail in a very long post how the Supreme Court usurped the power of the American people and instituted rules on speech the Court doesn't like.
11. So! The First Amendment
(1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion,
(2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the
religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress
from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech. Everyone understood that no
one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or
modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of
conscience.
12. But in Gitlow v. People
(1925), judges on the Supreme Court asserted – without any justification in Law
or Fact – that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) 4
incorporates the First
Amendment so that the First Amendment now restricts the powers of the
States! They said:
…we may and do assume that
freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment
from abridgment by Congress are among the fundamental personal rights and
“liberties” protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
from impairment by the States. We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential
Ins. Co. v. Cheek 5 .…that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on
the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question. (p.
666) [emphasis added]
The judges’ new
interpretation of the 14th Amendment became the weapon the Court has used to
silence Christians and to seize Power over States & local governments. By
claiming that the First Amendment restricts the powers of the
States & local governments, the Court set itself up as policeman over the
States, over counties, over cities & towns, and even over football fields
& court-house lawns! In this way, the Bill of Rights, which was
intended to be the States’ and The Peoples’ protection against usurpations of
power by the federal government, became the weapon the Supreme Court used to
usurp power and force their wills on all People in Our Land.
How the Supreme Court
Re-defined the Historic Term, “Establishment of Religion”.
13. We have seen that
Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison said the
distinguishing characteristic of an “established religion” was that the
“established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, whereas
“tolerated” denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their
adherents.
14. Now let us see how
judges on the Supreme Court re-defined “establishment of religion” in order to
ban prayer in public schools. Engel v. Vitale
(1962), is the case where six men outlawed non-denominational prayer in the
public schools. A public school board in New York had directed that the following
prayer be said at school:
Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our
teachers and our Country.
Any student was free to
remain seated or leave the room, without any comments by the teacher one way or
the other.
But six men on the Supreme
Court said this short, non-denominational and voluntary prayer constituted an
“establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment! They
(Hugo Black 6 Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, and Douglas) admitted that
allowing school children to say this prayer did not really “establish” a
“religion”! They admitted that the prayer:
…does not amount to a total
establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others —
that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively
insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion
which were commonplace 200 years ago…(p.436)
BUT THESE SIX MEN DIDN’T WANT CHILDREN PRAYING IN
SCHOOL. SO, THEY JUST REDEFINED “ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION” TO
MEAN, “A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY“, “A PRAYER” (P.424), HAVING PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN
HEAR OR RECITE A PRAYER THAT “SOMEBODY IN GOVERNMENT COMPOSED” (PP.425-427), “WRITING
OR SANCTIONING
OFFICIAL PRAYERS“(P.435), AND “GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT OF A PRAYER” (P.436).
THESE SIX MEN ALSO ADMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH NO
COERCION WAS PRESENT, AND EVEN THOUGH THE PRAYER WAS “DENOMINATIONALLY
NEUTRAL”, IT STILL CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL “ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION”:
Lawlessness on the Court.
a) Even though the First
Amendment expressly restricts only the law-making powers of Congress, and thus
was intended to be the States’ and the Peoples’ protection from Congress; the
supreme Court reversed the purpose of the First Amendment so that it became the
tool the Court uses to silence speech they don’t like and to suppress the free
exercise of a religion they don’t like, all throughout the States, counties,
towns & villages, all the way down to football fields & county
courthouse lawns.
Northwoods Patriots - Standing up for Faith, Family, Country - northwoodspatriotscomm@gmail.com
Posts
