Atheist Group Takes Down Billboard With Inaccurate Anti-Christian Jefferson Quote

Comments Off

Oops !!!

An Orange County group of skeptics, “with a heavy atheist ‘bent,’” have become tongue-tied in their campaign for secularism. California-based Backyard Skeptics head Bruce Gleason used $4,000 in anonymous donations to put up billboards with an anti-Christian Thomas Jefferson quote he had discovered.

Gleason, however, is now apologizing to the secular community after news broke that  The Jefferson Library Collection at Monticello could not find any such quote from the third U.S. president in their records. Gleason now insists that he may have misquoted Jefferson, but did not misrepresent his ideas, and put the billboard up in”good faith.” His words, not ours. ABC News on the controversy:

The billboard harshly read “I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology,” which Gleason has since tracked back to 1906 from an unknown author. Since the quote’s inaccuracy was revealed, Gleason has taken responsibility for the misquotation in order to deflect criticism onto himself rather than the group’s mission.

“The billboard hurts us, because there are other religious people who have said, ‘Look at those atheists, they’re misquoting Jefferson.’ Well I take it upon myself to say, yes I made a mistake,” Gleason told ABC.

In addition to buying billboard space, the Backyard Skeptics offers fellow non-believers “monthly meetings with interesting speakers as well as movie nights, science-oriented field trips, social dinner nights and outreach programs.”

The Orange County Register reports that Gleason’s group got attention last month for tearing out pages of the Bible at Huntington Beach pier, and has put billboards up in the past in Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Orange recently, and in Westminster in May.

Gleason told ABC that he plans to replace the billboard with another, holding true to the same secular message.

The Blaze

Is Christine O’Donnell is right-“Separation of Church and State” is NOT in the Constitution

2 Comments

Christine O’Donnell was laughed at during her debate with Chris Coons when she said “separation of church and state” was not in the 1st amendment. Is it?

Here’s another great article by my friend and retired Constitutional Lawyer from Tennessee Publius Huldah.  This is a very long article,  but worth the read.

The lie of “Separation of Church & State”

By Publius Huldah Sunday, October 24, 2010

1.  How did it happen that our country became a land where Christian children are forbidden to use the word, “God”, in the public schools; public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games; and religious speech is banned from the public square?  Read on, and I will show you how judges on the supreme Court perverted our Constitution, prohibited the Free Exercise of Religion, and abridged our Freedom of Speech.

2.  We must begin by learning what our Constitution says – and doesn’t say – about “religion” and “speech”.  The three branches of federal government:  Legislative Branch (Art I), Executive Branch (Art II), and Judicial Branch (Art III), have only the enumerated powers delegated to them in the Constitution.  All “legislative” powers granted in the Constitution are vested in Congress (Art I, ¬ß1).  This means that no other branch may make law.  Since the legislative powers of Congress are enumerated, Congress may make laws only on those specific subjects listed in the Constitution as proper objects of legislation.  Since “religion” & “speech” are not among the listed powers, Congress may not make any laws about religion or speech.

3. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

What is an “established religion”?  I will show you how judges on the supreme Court changed the historical definition of that term so that they could eradicate Christian speech from our public square and eliminate speech they don’t like.  We will begin by finding out what “establishment of religion” actually meant when the Constitution was ratified.  To do so, we must consult English history, American colonial history, and writings of our Founders.

Established Religion in England

4. Queen Mary I (“Bloody Mary”), who reigned between 1553-1558, deposed The Church of England which her Father, Henry VIII, had established; re-established the Roman Catholic Church, and burned approximately 300 Protestant dissenters at stake.

Elizabeth I, who reigned between 1558-1603, restored the Church of England. Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity (1559), imposed fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment on church officials who did not conform to approved doctrine & practice; and imposed fines on all persons who, without sufficient excuse, did not attend services of the Church of England. Additional laws illustrative of English Church History from 1558-1640 are here.

During the reign of Charles II (1661-1685), the Puritan John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s

Progress, was imprisoned for 11 years because he refused to attend services of the established Church of England, and he refused to obtain a license to preach as a “nonconformist”.

5. The established religions in England, first Roman Catholic, and then Church of England, were supported by “tithes”—mandatory payments of a percentage of the produce of the land, payable by those living within the parish (regardless of their religious preferences) to the parish church, to support it and its clergy:

The payment of tithes was a cause of endless dispute between the tithe owners and the tithe payers – between clergy and parishioners – … In addition, Quakers and other non-conformists objected to paying any tithes to support the established church.  Almost every agricultural process and product attracted controversy over its tithe value. By the eighteenth century the complex legislation surrounding the tithe began to have a detrimental effect … Tithing was seen as increasingly   irrelevant to the needs of the community and the developing agricultural industry.

6. So!  The essential characteristic of “established religion” in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church.

Established Religions in the American Colonies

7. English settlers in the colonies promptly established their religions! In Massachusetts, where the People established the Congregational Church, only church members could vote between 1631-1664; dissenters (Roger Williams, etc.) were banished; and between 1650-1670, Quakers were whipped, imprisoned, banished, and put to death.  In Virginia, where they established the Church of England, penalties for failure to attend services during the early 1600’s included death, prison, and fines. 1 In Maryland, where they established the Church of England, between 1704-1775, Roman Catholic (“RC”) services could be held only in private homes, RCs could not teach school,  inheritance of property by RCs was restricted, and RCs who would not take a certain oath were disfranchised and subject to additional taxes, as well as being forced to contribute to the established church.  In Virginia at this time, RCs were forbidden to possess arms, give evidence in court, or hold office unless they took certain oaths.  New York and Massachusetts made laws which stayed on the books until the Revolution directing all RCs to leave the realm.  Rhode Island’s laws between 1719-1783 prohibited RCs from being freeman or office holders.  Not until 1783 were RC’s given full political rights in Rhode Island.  In Virginia, no marriage was legal unless performed by a minister of the Church of England. 2

Everyone in Virginia, Maryland, and North & South Carolina was required to contribute to the support of the established Church of England, to maintain the building, pay the minister’s salary, and provide him with a house and plot of land.  New York required each county to hire a “good sufficient” Protestant minister and to levy taxes for his support.  By 1760, the Congregational Church was still established in Massachusetts and Connecticut; but Episcopalians, Baptists and Quakers were now tolerated, and no longer required to support of the Congregational Church. 3 Presbyterians of Chester, N.H. objected to being taxed to support the Congregational minister, and in 1740 won the right to be taxed only for their own denomination.  Even so, in 1807, the Presbyterians in Chester sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!

Writings of Our Founders

8. As the Spirit of Toleration grew in England and colonial America, criminal penalties for dissenting from the tax-supported established religions were abolished.  By 1776, the essential characteristic of “established religions”, as opposed to “tolerated religions”, was that the former were supported by tax money (or tithes assessed & collected by law); whereas the latter were supported by voluntary contributions alone.  Benjamin Franklin wrote in The London Packet, June 3, 1772 of colonial Americans:

They went from England to establish a new country … where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion … they granted the lands out in townships, requiring … that the freeholders should forever support a gospel minister (meaning probably one of the then governing sects) … Thus, what is commonly called Presbyterianism became the established religion of that country.  All went on well in this way while the same religious opinions were general, the support of minister … being raised by a proportionate tax on the lands.  But in process of time, some becoming Quakers, some Baptists, and … some returning to the Church of England … objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they … had forsaken.  The civil magistrates, however, continued for a time to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws which remained in force … a payment which it was thought no honest man ought to avoid under the pretense of his having changed his religious persuasion. … But the practice being clamoured against by the episcopalians as persecution, the legislature of the Province of the Massachusets-Bay, near thirty years since, passed an act for their relief, requiring indeed the tax to be paid as usual, but directing that the … sums levied from members of the Church of England, should be paid over to the Minister of that Church, with whom such members usually attended divine worship, which Minister had power given him to receive and on occasion to recover the same by law. [emphasis in boldface added; italics in original]

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1775 in his “Remarks on the Quebec Bill” (No. 11):

The characteristic difference between a tolerated and established religion, consists in this: With respect to the support of the former, the law is passive and improvident, leaving it to those who profess it, to make as much, or as little, provision as they … judge expedient; and to vary and alter that provision, as their circumstances may require.  In this manner, the Presbyterians, and other sects, are tolerated in England.  They are allowed to exercise their religion without molestation, and to maintain their clergy as they think proper.  These are wholly dependent upon their congregations, and can exact no more than they stipulate and are satisfied to contribute.  But with respect to the support of the latter, the law is active and provident.  Certain precise dues, (tithes &c.,) are legally annexed to the clerical office, independent on the liberal contributions of the people …While tithes were the free … gift of the people … the Roman church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment. [emphasis added]

James Madison wrote in his letter of 1832 to Rev. Adams:

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals…

9. So! The essential characteristic of an “established religion” by 1789 was that an “established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, but “tolerated”denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents. Benjamin Franklin’s fascinating letter of 1772 shows that the hot topic of the time was the forcing of dissenters to financially support established religion:  In England, dissenters from the Church of England were forced to pay tithes to the clergy of that Church. The English supporters of the Church of England responded that the “dissenters” in America had no room to complain because they compelled American Anglicans to pay taxes to support the Presbyterian worship!

Whose Powers Are Restricted By The First Amendment?

10.  Before we look at supreme Court opinions banning the free exercise of religion & abridging free speech, we must consider:  Whose powers are restricted by The First Amendment?  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers! The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want – this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People!  Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.  We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax.  Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seventh). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.

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.  The People of Virginia said, when they ratified the U.S. Constitution:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States… [emphasis added]

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 & county 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 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)

Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion:

I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words.  A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. (p.442)

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”:

The Establishment Clause … does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. (p.430)

Douglas said in his concurring opinion:

There is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the … prayer (p.438); there is … no effort at indoctrination, and no attempt at exposition … New York’s prayer … does not involve any element of proselytizing … (p.439).

15. They thus redefined “established religion” to describe what the N.Y. public schools were doing so that they could then outlaw it.  They don’t have that right!  We have quoted Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison as showing that the essence of an “established religion” is that the civil government selects a particular religious denomination (Roman Catholic or Church of England or Congregational or Presbyterian, etc., and forces everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes. 7

16. Well!  Since the evil from which the supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale pretended it sought to protect our public school children was having them recite or hear (if they wanted to) a one-sentence non-denominational prayer which “somebody in government composed”; that monstrous evil can be avoided if the children write their own prayers, right?
17. Oh no!,  said six people on the supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000).  Here, a public school district permitted, but did not require, student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer at home football games.  But Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, & Kennedy said this constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment, because the prayers were “public speech” authorized by “government policy” taking place on “government property” at government sponsored school events, and the policy involved “perceived” and “actual” “government endorsement of prayer.”

The six also said on page 309-310 of their opinion:

…School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 …

Do you see?  They cite themselves—their earlier opinion in Lynch—as authority! 8 Furthermore, making “nonadherents” feel like “outsiders” is not a constitutional standard; it is the judges’ own silly standard.

The six said on page 310:

…We explained in Lee that the “preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.”  505 U.S. at 589…

Again, they cite themselves - their opinion in Lee – as authority! Furthermore, the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise ANYWHERE!

18. Again, the six judges in Santa Fe re-defined “establishment of religion” to describe what the Santa Fe School District was doing so that they could then outlaw it.
19. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas, said the majority opinion:

…bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.  Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”… (p. 318) [emphasis added]

The One-Way Only “Wall of Separation” Between Church and State

20. We have all heard the chant, mindlessly recited, “separation of church and state”.  Many believe this phrase is in the Constitution, and that it forbids any Christian influence in the public square. But that is false. The phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is not a constitutional principle. The First Amendment says Congress may not “legally establish one [religious] creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers”;  9 and it may not prohibit the free exercise of religion or religious speech ANYWHERE.

21. We saw that in Connecticut, the Congregational Church was the established religion until Connecticut dis-established that Church with it’s Constitution of 1818.  Earlier, on October 7, 1801, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson in which they expressed their distress that in Connecticut, where they were a religious minority,

…religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen…
*****
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states…till…tyranny be destroyed from the earth…

These Baptists thus expressed their hope that the People of Connecticut would be influenced by Jefferson’s sentiments and dis-establish the Congregational Church in Connecticut.
22.  In his response dated January 2, 1802, Jefferson indicated that he hoped the People of Connecticut would follow the example of the “whole American people”:

…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights…

Jefferson agreed that civil government ought not dictate to People in matters of religious belief, and pointed out that the First Amendment prevents Congress from doing this.  He did not say that religion must be relegated to the private sphere!  He used the First Amendment as his model – and it restricts only Congress, not religion.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists both knew the federal government had no authority to dis-establish Connecticut’s official Church.

23. An earlier Draft of Jefferson’s letter with recently discovered text reads:

…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establish-ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.  Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts… [emphasis added]

24. Dr. Hutson’s article shows that on Sunday, Jan 3, 1802, right after Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended worship services in the House of Representatives, where John Leland, a Baptist minister and well known advocate of religious liberty, preached.  During the remainder of Jefferson’s two administrations, he attended religious services conducted in the House “constantly”.  Jefferson granted “permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held…”

Jefferson had no problem with sectarian praying, preaching & communion serving on public property!  It could be said that he “endorsed” Christianity! Those who are so determined to eradicate Christianity from our Country walk on a slender reed when they claim Jefferson as an ally.
25.  In Engel v. Vitale, Hugo Black said the reading of the prayer [“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country”] before children in the N.Y. public schools who chose to hear it:

breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State (p.425).

Even though this metaphor of “wall of separation between church and state” is nowhere in the Constitution, this Klansman turned supreme Court justice misrepresented it as a “constitutional” principle! 10

Furthermore, Hugo Black misapplied the metaphor:  The “wall of separation” metaphor doesn’t apply to what the N.Y. public schools were doing because The State of New York isn’t “Congress”; and New York, with it’s one sentence non-denominational prayer, wasn’t “establishing a religion” . What Jefferson’s metaphor applied to was an Act of Congress selecting a particular denomination (Roman Catholic or Episcopalian or Congregational or Presbyterian, or Baptist, etc., and forcing everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes.

Congress also may not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion anywhere [neither may the supreme Court]; and that Jefferson thought “religion” should have an influence in the public square is clear from all those church services & celebrations of communion which were “constantly” held in the House of Representatives and the Executive Office Building!

Lawlessness on the Court

26.  Let us summarize what the supreme Court has done to free speech and the free exercise of religion throughout our Land. They have violated the First Amendment in four ways:

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.

b) Even though the First Amendment says, “an establishment of religion”, a phrase which has a distinct historical meaning, the Court from time to time re-defines the term so as to describe the circumstances surrounding religious speech they don’t like so that they can declare it “unconstitutional”.  In effect, they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention amending the words in the U.S. Constitution to elevate into “Law” their own WILLS.

c) They outlawed the free exercise of religion; and they outlawed free speech – when the subject is “religious” – because they don’t like it.  They took away from their Sovereign—their Creators—a right expressly reserved by us in the U.S. Constitution.  Congress may not stop people from praying anywhere, or posting The Ten Commandments anywhere, or preaching in any public areas.  Neither may the Supreme Court.  But those lawless usurpers took away OUR religions and replaced them with THEIR humanist & statist religion which they seek to force on us.

d) By claiming that their opinions have the effect of “law”, they made “laws” respecting religion, and “laws” abridging speech they don’t like, even though the federal government has no authority to act in this area.  When Congress is prohibited from making laws in an area, the supreme Court certainly may not make laws in that area!  The only way “religion” or “speech” could ever properly get before the supreme Court would be if CONGRESS VIOLATED the First Amendment and Art. I., ¬ß 8 by making a law “respecting” the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or by making a law abridging the freedom of speech.  The States and political subdivisions retained the rights to make whatever laws they please “respecting” religion (subject only to any limitations imposed by their own State Constitutions), and the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere.

27. In closing, know this:  Federal judges do not have “lifetime appointments”.  They serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, ¬ß1).  The constitutional remedy for usurping federal judges is impeachment, trial, conviction & removal.  Federalist No. 81 (8th para), A. Hamilton.

In the Year of our Lord, October 24, 2010 11
Publius Huldah.

1 A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States, Williston Walker (1894), pp 114-149; Google digitized book.

2 A History of the United States: A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760, Edward Channing (1908), pp 423- 454; Google digitized book.

3 Id.

4 The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) says, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…”

Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously researched book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with silencing Christians!

John Whitehead’s essay, “The Fading Constitution”, in The Second American Revolution, Crossway Books (1982), shows how the supreme Court turned the Bill of Rights, “which was once a source of freedom against federal governmental interference [into] a source of intervention by the federal government into the very heart of the state governments.”  PH highly recommends Whitehead’s book to lawyers & laymen alike.

5 Just three years earlier, the supreme Court said in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek (1922):

But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about “freedom of speech” … nor … does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations. (page 543) [emphasis added]

Do you see?  First it doesn’t; then, three years later – it does!

6 Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, was a New Deal Democrat, a former Ku Klux Klan member, a supporter of FDR’s court-packing scheme, & FDR’s first appointment to the supreme Court.

7 The majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale is also silly.  Between the time Hugo Black changed his white robe for a black robe, he apparently didn’t study Logic: On pp. 425-427, Black discussed the 16th century Established Church of England and its Book of Common Prayer which was approved by Parliament during 1548 & 1549.  From that, Black concluded that when somebody “in government” composes a prayer, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”, even if the prayer is non-denominational & voluntary!  This is the form of Black’s argument:

1st Premise: An established religion wrote a Book of Common Prayer for the public that Parliament approved.

2nd Premise: People in NY State government wrote a one-sentence prayer for the public.

Conclusion: When people in government write a one-sentence prayer for the public, they “establish a religion”.

Oh my! Black made several errors in Logic, among which are:

(a) The dreaded “Fallacy of Four Terms”: The Premises don’t connect “establish a religion” with “people in government writing a prayer”, so the reasoning is invalid.  There are four terms in Black’s argument – and the fourth term, “establish a religion”, is introduced in the conclusion!!

(b) Black selected one of many activities engaged in by established religions – writing prayers – & concluded that anytime government performs that same activity, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”.  But established religions do many things – you can’t pick one of the things & say that if government does it, government “establishes a religion”!  That’s ridiculous!

(c) Our Founders said the defining characteristic of “established religion” is that a particular denomination selected by civil government exists on taxes & tithes extracted from the People by force! But Black redefined the term to mean “people in government writing a prayer for the public”, so as to enable him to rule in the case then before him, that N.Y. “established a religion”.  This is the fallacy of “Victory by Definition”: one redefines the terms so that one “wins”.  It is intellectually dishonest.

8 They insert their personal views into their opinions and then, in later cases, cite those earlier personal views as authority!  This is preposterous and a classic example of the Rule of Men!  The judges’ sole authority is to decide cases properly before them; their decisions affect only the parties to the cases, and do not have the force & effect of “law” on anybody.  The Federalist No. 78, A. Hamilton.

9 “A Wall of Separation”,  by James Hutson.  The quote is in the next to the last paragraph.

10 Justice Stewart, who dissented, said in Engel v. Vitale:

Moreover, I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution…(pp.445-446)

11 Art. VII, clause 2, U.S. Constitution, contains an express recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Is that “unconstitutional”?  I think not—It is, after all, “in the Constitution”.

Canada Free Press

Roger Sherman only founding father to sign all four of America’s founding documents

1 Comment

You’ll find interesting tidbits at this website: American Minute

American Minute with Bill Federer

July 23

Roger Sherman was the only person to sign all four of America’s
founding documents: the Articles of Association-1774, the Declaration
of Independence-1776, the Articles of Confederation-1777, and the U.S.
Constitution-1787.

At age 19, Roger Sherman’s father died and he supported his family as
a shoe cobbler, helping two younger brothers attend college and become
clergymen.

Roger Sherman was a surveyor and merchant, but when a neighbor needed
legal advice, he studied to help, only to be inspired to be a lawyer.

Roger Sherman was elected a state senator, a judge and a delegate to
the Continental Congress.

He helped draft the Declaration of Independence and gave instructions
to an embassy to Canada:

“That all civil rights and the right to hold office were to be
extended to persons of any Christian denomination.”

Roger Sherman made 138 speeches at the Constitutional Convention, and
in the first session of Congress, thought a First Amendment
unnecessary, as religion was under each individual States’
jurisdiction.

Elected a U.S. Senator at age 70, Roger Sherman died JULY 23, 1793.
Inscribed on his tomb is:

“He ever adorned the profession of Christianity which he made in
youth and…died in the prospect of a blessed immortality.”

DOES THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

Comments Off

A recent commenter on one our articles  entitled,“The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare” referred us to an article in the New York Times in which it said this,

“In terms of US federalism specifically, federal health-care legislation cannot be justified by any of the enumerated powers granted to the US Goverment. So it must be the spending clause that the feds are using.  The US Government may spend for the general welfare. In my view, this is best interpreted as “for that which the states cannot do” or “for emergencies rather than ordinary spending.”  Otherwise, the spending clause easily trumps any enumeration at all because with spending comes power (i.e., strings).

Let’s see what the founders meant by the “general welfare clause” in the Constitution. We don’t have to guess what they meant….here’s another article by my newly made friend Publius Huldah a retired Constitutional lawyer of 35+ years here in Tennessee.  Her great articles and research can be found at Publius Huldah.wordpress.com

DOES THE “GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE” OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO FORCE US TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE?

Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

By Publius Huldah

CNSNews.com recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”.  In the article, Steny Hoyer (Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

Oh my! Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”! As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?  Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

5. So!  It is clear from Madison and Hamilton that The Constitution does not bestow any general or unlimited grant of legislative power to Congress! And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government?  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:

the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, we can understand the true meaning of  the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

7. So!  How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition:  During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages! So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution:  FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely – if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law” – an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions – and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People.  The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution! (But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO! Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16, next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49, 3rd Para).

Folks! Your duty is clear:  Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.

PubliusHuldah.wordpress.com

Refuting the Bad “Health Insurance vs Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism

Comments Off

Here’s a great article from a newly made friend that lives in Tennessee and is a retired Constitutional lawyer of 35+ years Publius Huldah. She has several articles I will probably post in their entirety a little at a time for education purposes. You can check them all out at  her website Publius Huldah.Wordpress.com

Refuting the Bad “Health Insurance vs Auto Insurance” Analogy: A Lesson In Federalism

Defending Our Constitution From Its Domestic Enemies.

It has been said, even by some law professors, that Congress can force Americans to buy health insurance because …well, everybody knows that the “government” can force us to buy auto insurance.

Read on, and I will show you how such statements constitute a serious assault on “federalism” and our constitutional Republic. But first, let us hear from some of these professors.

Michael Seidman, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center,  appeared on November 14, 2009 on Fox and Friends Saturday. He said, in support of his affirmative answer to the question, “Can Congress force Americans to buy health insurance?”,

…the government, ah you know, the government requires us to buy car insurance, it requires us to to engage in to buy the social security to buy uh social security insurance essentially… [transcribed to the best of my ability]

Nan Hunter, law professor at Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for Global and National Health Law, gave the Introduction at a debate on October 26, 2009 between Professor Seidman and constitutional attorney David Rivkin.  The topic was “Are health care purchase mandates constitutional?”.  After describing Seidman as “one of the ah leading constitutional law scholars in the nation”, Hunter said,

…it is clear that government can mandate the purchase of private insurance before one engages in certain activities, for example, driving.  It can mandate the purchase of automobile insurance as a quid pro quo for ah legally being able to drive.  However, individuals can elect not to drive and therefore obviously not have to purchase auto insurance…

Timothy Stoltzfuz Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee University, participated in Politico’s September 18, 2009 forum on “Healthcare: Is ‘mandatory insurance’ unconstitutional?”.  Jost wrote that while the “claim” that “health reform” is unconstitutional is a “talking point” “pushed” by “Republicans”, “former Bush officials” such as David Rivkin, Fox News Commentator Andrew Napolitano, town hall attendees, and tea party demonstrators, “[i]t is not…an argument taken seriously by constitutional scholars.”  Jost went on to say,

The only plausible question is whether Congress has the authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance. The primary difficulty here is that it is hard to think of a precedent where Congress (or for that matter the states, other than Massachusetts with its recent health care reforms) have required residents to purchase a particular product or service. Auto liability insurance mandates come to mind, but these are only imposed on persons who use the public roads.

Thomas J. Whalen, social science professor at Boston University, wrote on the Politico forum:

…the commerce clause seems sufficiently expansive enough [sic] to include mandatory health insurance for all Americans. After all, for some time now we’ve all been required to have auto insurance to operate our motor vehicles. And last time I checked, the Republic is still standing.

Apparently, Whalen is not a lawyer, though his biography informs us that he is an “expert”.   And Jost said i t was “…correct to invite…political experts to respond, because this is not a serious legal issue..”.

So!  While social science professors who agree with Jost are qualified to opine on this constitutional issue; “Republicans”, “former Bush officials” such as constitutional attorney David Rivkin, Judge Andrew Napolitano, town hall attendees and tea party demonstrators are most emphatically not. Their position, you see, is not “serious”.

By their invocation of the auto insurance analogy, such “expert” and “scholarly” professors as Seidman, Hunter, Jost and Whalen show that they have no understanding of “federalism”; or they think you don’t, and they are trying to take advantage of your supposed ignorance. So, is their metaphorical place under the dunce’s cap, or is it Antenora in the Ninth Circle?

What is “federalism”?  “Federal” refers to the form of our government:  An alliance of Sovereign States associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.

James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, illustrated “federalism” in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….[italics added]

Madison explained “federalism” again in Federalist No.39 (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…[italics added]

And in Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[italics added]

This, Folks, is “federalism”:  The delegation by The People and their States of a few enumerated powers to the “federal” government; and THE RETENTION OF THE GENERAL POWERS – those which “concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people” – BY THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE AND THEIR STATES.

Article I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution, shows that the enumerated powers delegated to the “federal” government are confined to war, a few aspects of commerce (strictly defined), immigration, delivery of our mail, and the establishment of a uniform commercial system (bankruptcy, a monetary system, punishment of counterfeiting, a standard of weights and measures, and issuance of patents and copyrights). That’s basically it!

As Madison said, it is the States which retain an “inviolable sovereignity” over “the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people”.  It is THE STATES which have required drivers to purchase auto insurance! The federal government has no authority under The Constitution to require us to buy any kind of insurance.

By saying that Congress can force you to buy health insurance because “the government” can require you to buy auto insurance, these “scholarly” and “expert” professors are  obliterating “federalism”.  Do they not understand what they are doing?  Or, are they trying to deceive you?

The concept of “federalism” is so easy to grasp that surely these professors can understand it.  After all, some non-lawyers among this writer’s contacts  – even those who attend tea parties and town hall meetings – seem to understand it quite well. PH

December 10, 2009

Thomas Jefferson on State’s Rights

Comments Off

This article is for those that don’t fully understand the Constitution and it’s limitations on the federal government. We are not a democracy….we are a republic and there is a difference. With all the state sovernighty resolutions going around I thought it might be a good educational tool to see what Thomas Jefferson said about it.  He isn’t the only one I could use for this article. I thought he’d be a good one to use because of some of the false info given out about him by the likes of the History channel among others.

Here’s what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers #45

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite……The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

Jefferson’s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government

by Gennady Stolyarov II

The doctrine of nullification, i.e., the idea that states have the right to unilaterally render void an act of the federal government that they perceive to be contrary to the Constitution, finds its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, most notably his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, written to protest the Federalist Congress’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions claim that the U. S. Constitution was a compact among the several states-whereby the states delegated certain limited powers to the U.S. government; any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is thus void.

Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution uses the Tenth Amendment to justify a strict construction of the general government’s powers; any powers not expressly delegated to the U. S. government remain the province of the states or the people, and any exercise of those powers by the general government is void and can be struck down by the states on that basis.

Furthermore, Jefferson warns against construing the “necessary and proper” clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government; the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government’s scope. Otherwise, this part of the Constitution would be used “to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”

Jefferson counsels the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitutions and not hesitant to strike down unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President; he writes that “free government is founded in jealously and not in confidence” and therefore urges that “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In other words, the states should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those particular federal officials might be trusted to use those powers benevolently; this kind of “confidence of man” leads to the destruction of free government.

Gennady Stolyarov II is an independent philosophical essayist, composer, amateur mathematician, contributor to Mises.org, editor-in-chief of The Rational Argumentator and The Progress of Liberty, and a high-ranking content producer on Associated Content..

Read at Tenth Amendment Center.com

Compare the Words from Washington Then, and Washington Now

Comments Off

John Kennedy once said to a assembled group of scholars in the White House – 
 
“I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” 
 
The quotes below could prove his point— 
 
  
“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ” –Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
” It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” — Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” –Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
” My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” –Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
” No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
” The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ” –Thomas Jefferson 
  
 
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” –Thomas Jefferson 
 

 

Very Interesting Quote: In light of the present financial crisis, it’s interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: 
 
“Banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” 

Why are we saying that these pantywastes are more intellectually advanced than our founders and that they are out dated?  Gimme a break.  Please folks, get a grip and stand up and say you’ve had enough.

Steve

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 395 other followers