From Newsgroup: alt.society.civil-liberty

Aside from the 14th Amendment's dubious Constitutionality (ratified only
by being approved by states that had not been readmitted), it's clear that
the 10 Commandments display Moore put up is blatantly Unconstitutional. The
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable
to the states. <SANDBLOOD@webtv.net> wrote in message news:9002-3F3D9C82-181@storefull-2116.public.lawson.webtv.net...

DID THE FOUNDERS
UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION?

By: Dorothy Anne Seese

Is the above just a stupid question?
Not that stupid. Early Presidents and Congresses violated the
Constitution several times. Just look at the Alien and Sedition Acts, First National Bank of the United States, Louisiana Purchase...
Did our founders, the ones who
hammered out the Constitution of the United States, several of whom
became presidents, fail to understand the Constitution of the United
States of America? Why would anyone even ask a question like that?

Because either the Founders misunderstood the Constitution they drafted
and the states ratified, or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is
clueless as to the meaning and intent of the Constitution and our
founders, as is evidenced by the order to Roy Moore, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Alabama, to remove the Ten Commandments from public premises.

That makes the title question valid. Either the Founders had no idea
what they meant, or the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) has invented another document out of what our forefathers wrote, and meant when it was written!

It has been stated over and over by administrations, congressional representatives, lawmakers in various states and lawyers across the land
that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the
land. That would include the Bill of Rights and all subsequent
amendments. According to past SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution is
indeed the supreme law of the land, including all ten articles of the
Bill of Rights.

Now, enough commentary, it is time to offer the proof.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the
power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of
our political institutions... upon the capacity of each and all of us to
govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according
to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison, 1778
Irrelevant. This is a quote from before the Constitution was passed,
before the Constitutional Convention was convened, before Madison knew there would be a Federal Constitution with church-state provisions, and before Madison or anyone else could have had any idea that someone would post it on
an Internet newsgroup in a discussion regarding Constitutional
interpretation.

The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth --
That
God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise
without
His aid? . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers be
held
imploring the assistance of Heaven . . . in this assembly every morning. --Benjamin Franklin

There was no 1st Amendment at that time. That quote is from 1787, more
than 4 years before the 1st Amendment was ratified, 2 years before the
Federal Government was established, and decades before the 14th Amendment.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason
peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and
freedom of worship."
-- Patrick Henry (1736-1799), American Patriot, Founder, Lawyer &
Politician

Irrelevant. Nothing here opposing church-state separation. Besides,
Patrick Henry wasn't personally in control of the writing and ratification
of the 1st Amendment.
If we work upon marble, it will perish. If we work upon brass, time will
efface it. If we rear temples, they will crumble to dust. But if we work
upon men's immortal minds, if we imbue them with high principles, with
the
just fear of God and love of their fellowmen, we engrave on those
tablets
something which no time can efface and which will brighten to all
eternity.
--Daniel Webster

Daniel Webster wasn't one of the Founding Fathers.
It is any wonder, then, in light of the statement made in the landmark
decision establishing the authority of the Supreme court, Marbury v.
Madison, and the statements of the founders of this nation, that Alabama
Chief Justice Roy Moore contends that placement of the Ten Commandments
within his courthouse is not a violation but an adherence to the
Constitution and within his constitutional rights?
None of your quotes attacks separation of church and state.

Judge Moore is correct. It is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
that is overriding the Constitution by their unconstitutional opinions.
They are in violation of the law of the land that they are supposed to
uphold and the laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are
illegal.

Thus the rulings of numerous United States Supreme Courts and federal
courts are actually in violation of the supreme law of the United States because such decisions, rulings and opinions are in violation of the
written words of the Constitution and its intent.

Such subverted justices and judges have committed impeachable
offenses. They have twisted the First Amendment to their own
prejudices rather than adhering to the law of the land, and as such, are
guilty of creating case law that is repugnant to the Constitution.

Such violators of our foundational laws and the supreme law of the land
should be held guilty of impeachable offenses against the Constitution
in keeping with the judicial finding in Marbury v. Madison.
Rightly did the late Barry Goldwater, in his book Conscience of a
Conservative state:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it
more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to
promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to
pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs,
but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have
failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted
financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation
is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is
constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked
for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was
informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am
doing the very best I can."

Today the agenda of the politicized federal courts, including SCOTUS, is
to drive all expressions of the Christian faith out of the United
States,
Liar. Only government funded or government assisted expression of
religion is affected by SCOTUS's church-state rulings. To deny government funding for expression is not to censor expression. It is clear from the wording and context of the 1st Amendment that it inhibits government interference, rather than requiring government funding.
first out of federal buildings, then in violation of the Tenth
Amendment out of all state buildings, and further, out of all public
displays.


To try to justify such actions based on "separation of church and state"
-- a phrase not even in the Constitution or its amendments -- is to
belabor a point and mangle it beyond recognition!
The Castle Doctrine is certainly established at least in part by the 4th Amendment, yet the term "castle" doesn't show up anywhere in the
Constitution. By your logic unreasonable searches and seizures are permitted
by the Constitution, and a man's home isn't his castle.


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113