Post by PatriotsUnite on Apr 27, 2004 18:32:22 GMT -5
In 1940, 1943 and then again in 1947, the Supreme Court began a series of interpretations of the 14th Amendment that would alter the course laid forth by the Founding Fathers regarding the 1st Amendment and how it applied to the several States. They started a chain of rulings that in effect purported that because of the 14th Amendment, the federal government had the authority to involve itself in limiting States not just on issues that pertained to civil rights in the wake of the Civil War (as was the intent implicitly of the 14th Amendment), but extended it to “mean” that it was in fact an extension that had the authority to invade upon the Bill of Rights themselves. This new process was and is called “selective incorporation”.
Amendment XIV, Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”<br>
The intent behind the 14th Amendment (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868) was to grant the federal government the Constitutional authority to guarantee and enforce the civil rights of freed slaves, making clear that a return to the legalization of slavery in any form was to be forever banned by law in and for the entire nation. Before this, the southern States in particular took the liberty of dealing with the legalities and issues regarding the treatment and handling of slaves by State law; the 14th Amendment was the remedy to settle the debate that was largely responsible for the Civil War, permanently.
The following is the chain of events that led to the birth of the concept of “selective incorporation”:
Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 1940. The Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah Witnesses who went door to door could not be charged a soliciting fee, as required by Connecticut state law, because it restricted their religious freedom.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943. The Court found that the Jeanette (a city in Pennsylvania) ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
McCollum vs. Board of Education, 1948. The Supreme Court ruled that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, neither can pass laws, which aid one religion or prefer one to another, neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will to force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
In each case, the 14th Amendment was cited as the Constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene on behalf of individuals, thereby overstepping the 1st Amendment and it’s clarity in restricting only the United States Congress from making any laws that would establish a national religion. It should be noted that all three cases involved the protection of religious liberty and their freedom to practice the same freely for the individual, irrespective of State and local laws and ordinances.
The problem with these rulings are that they were an extension and interpretation of the 14th Amendment which had an altogether different intent, and they “used” the language contained therein to mean something that it did not. The 14th Amendment spoke specifically of three basic guarantees: life, liberty, and property. All were clearly and in context related to the fair and equal treatment as citizens, feed slaves who were still subject to persecution by individual States. Again, this was in response to settling the matter of slavery as it applied to the Civil War and post-war reconstruction.
The 1st Amendment has been violated with extreme intellectual dishonesty, and this my friends is the basis of federal involvement in cases regarding religion outside of the confines laid forth in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was often quoted in these and many other cases where it was extolled that he spoke with Constitutional authority when he wrote a letter of personal correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association and spoke of a “Wall of separation that existed between church and State”.
This my friends is the true history of the destruction of freedom of local communities and States to practice religion as the 1st Amendment guaranteed it. Outraged? You should be! We have been swindled and robbed, and our Constitution has been raped by Judges and attorneys who have an agenda... The total and complete secularization of America! I wonder what Jefferson, the Anti-Federalist, would have thought about this?
www.patriotsunite.com
Amendment XIV, Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”<br>
The intent behind the 14th Amendment (Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868) was to grant the federal government the Constitutional authority to guarantee and enforce the civil rights of freed slaves, making clear that a return to the legalization of slavery in any form was to be forever banned by law in and for the entire nation. Before this, the southern States in particular took the liberty of dealing with the legalities and issues regarding the treatment and handling of slaves by State law; the 14th Amendment was the remedy to settle the debate that was largely responsible for the Civil War, permanently.
The following is the chain of events that led to the birth of the concept of “selective incorporation”:
Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 1940. The Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah Witnesses who went door to door could not be charged a soliciting fee, as required by Connecticut state law, because it restricted their religious freedom.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943. The Court found that the Jeanette (a city in Pennsylvania) ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license from the borough was an unconstitutional tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses' right to freely exercise their religion.
McCollum vs. Board of Education, 1948. The Supreme Court ruled that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, neither can pass laws, which aid one religion or prefer one to another, neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will to force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
In each case, the 14th Amendment was cited as the Constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene on behalf of individuals, thereby overstepping the 1st Amendment and it’s clarity in restricting only the United States Congress from making any laws that would establish a national religion. It should be noted that all three cases involved the protection of religious liberty and their freedom to practice the same freely for the individual, irrespective of State and local laws and ordinances.
The problem with these rulings are that they were an extension and interpretation of the 14th Amendment which had an altogether different intent, and they “used” the language contained therein to mean something that it did not. The 14th Amendment spoke specifically of three basic guarantees: life, liberty, and property. All were clearly and in context related to the fair and equal treatment as citizens, feed slaves who were still subject to persecution by individual States. Again, this was in response to settling the matter of slavery as it applied to the Civil War and post-war reconstruction.
The 1st Amendment has been violated with extreme intellectual dishonesty, and this my friends is the basis of federal involvement in cases regarding religion outside of the confines laid forth in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was often quoted in these and many other cases where it was extolled that he spoke with Constitutional authority when he wrote a letter of personal correspondence to the Danbury Baptist Association and spoke of a “Wall of separation that existed between church and State”.
This my friends is the true history of the destruction of freedom of local communities and States to practice religion as the 1st Amendment guaranteed it. Outraged? You should be! We have been swindled and robbed, and our Constitution has been raped by Judges and attorneys who have an agenda... The total and complete secularization of America! I wonder what Jefferson, the Anti-Federalist, would have thought about this?
www.patriotsunite.com
