Let's review: The first big case was a 1984 nativity scene case, Lynch v. Donnelly, involving the city of Pawtucket, R.I. The high court found, in a 5-4 decision, that a city-sponsored crèche in a public park did not violate Establishment Clause. The court's reasoning was based in part on the fact that the display included, in addition to a Nativity scene, "secular" symbols of the holiday, such as a Christmas tree, a Santa Claus house, and cut-out figures of a clown, a dancing elephant, a robot, and a teddy bear. As you'll recall, there were no robots in the original story of the birth of the baby Jesus.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Nearly 60 Plaintiffs Now Suing Obama Administration Over HHS Contraception Mandate
Yesterday evangelical Wheaton College announced it was joining the lawsuit. Last week another Illinois institution, Catholic Charities of Chicago, joined the suit. There are now more than 20 separate cases and nearly 60 individual plaintiffs. Tweet
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Original Meaning Of The First Amendment's Establishment Clause: Confused Supreme Court Precedent vs. The Constitution And Early American History
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in its first clause that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This simple clause has become a confused mess in the hands of the modern Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court's denying certiorari in Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists on October 31, 2011 that "the Establishment Clause jurisprudence [is] in shambles" and "has confounded the lower courts." No statement could be more true.
The Constitution has been abused in respect to this very first provision in the Bill of Rights, this first protection of liberty, and every American deserves to know how. It is important to briefly explain the jumbled mess the Supreme Court has made of this most important clause. Only then can we compare the legal pandemonium the Supreme Court has birthed with the original freedom protected by the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT: NO RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS ALLOWED, UNLESS WE ARBITRARILY SAY SO
There is no better line of cases to demonstrate the chaos Supreme Court precedent has unleashed than the issue of public religious displays. The Crèche, Ten Commandments, and even Menorahs have increasingly come under legal assault from the likes of the ACLU and their secular progressive compatriots, with successful results.
Dahlia Lithwick is a liberal senior editor at Slate. In one article entitled, "I Need a Hero: Seeking a bomb-throwing, passionate, visionary, liberal Scalia for a seat on the Supreme Court," she stated that "some cross between Rachel Maddow and Emma Goldman sounds like a good start" for Supreme Court nominee. Yet even this most liberal of editors and columnists had written that when it comes to Establishment Clause litigation "even after absorbing all the case law, you won't be sure whether or not you have a case." That should prove that this is not a product of the partisan imagination. She correctly writes that in a "clutch of divisive and confusing cases, the high court has held that nativity scenes are constitutional, except when they are not." In fact, this liberal legal columnist has the story well enough documented that I would like to quote her in detail explaining this ridiculous line of jurisprudence:
After attempting to derive some "guiding principles," she acknowledges that they are "not very" predictive. But the nonsense does not end there.The 1989 decision in Allegheny County v. ACLU went 5-4 the other way on the crèche scene. The court found a Nativity scene on the main staircase of the county courthouse to be unconstitutional. This time, the court emphasized that the privately owned crèche—which was unaccompanied by Santa or the dancing elephants—and which included a banner proclaiming "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" ("Glory to God in the Highest") was indisputably religious. In the same case, however, a different five-judge majority found that a nearby display, featuring an 18-foot Hanukkah menorah, placed next to a 45-foot Christmas tree, did not violate the Establishment Clause. Evidently, like Kryptonite, the "secular" tree somehow canceled out the religious superpowers of the menorah.
The third case, Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, is a 1995 case involving the Ku Klux Klan's efforts to display a cross in a public park opposite the Ohio statehouse. In Pinette, the court, by a 7-2 vote, held that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause, although no single rationale for why that was so garnered more than four votes.
A couple of split decisions defines this line of jurisprudence. A pair of decisions handed down in 2005 over Ten Commandments displays placed on courthouse and State capitol grounds actually reached opposite results. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Ten Commandments were put up in two rural Kentucky courthouses with an unconstitutional purpose, but yet a Ten Commandments display erected in 1961 on the Texas State capitol grounds was in fact constitutional. The less contradictory truth was written down by Justice Antonin Scalia in his concurrence which stated "that there is nothing unconstitutional in a State’s favoring religion generally, honoring God through public prayer and acknowledgment, or, in a nonproselytizing manner, venerating the Ten Commandments."
Christians have bore a major brunt of this sort of legal abuse against such displays as nativity scenes and more. But no one should dare think that these sorts of perverse legal suits have lent themselves only to attacking Christian displays. Remember that in the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU the ACLU attempted to remove a Jewish Menorah from a public display as well Christian displays. In Beverly Hills a Jewish organization removed its large Chanukah Menorah which had on the holiday briefly appeared near the Beverly Hills Public Library for years, as a direct result of a lawsuit. It was a court "decision...banishing a menorah from a public park in Beverly Hills." As Dahlia Lithwick herself noted back in 2001, "[a] small community in Tampa, Fla., just removed their display of a Christmas tree and a menorah, apparently because a member of the board that oversees the community objected to the menorah (but not the Christmas tree) as 'pushing' the Jewish religion onto residents." Countless such examples could be cited to prove the legal absurdities that have served to abuse not only the Christian majority.
In fact, in the Allegheny case the Supreme Court recognized the obvious: "The menorah, one must recognize, is a religious symbol: it serves to commemorate the miracle of the oil as described in the Talmud." Yet the very next sentence of Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion states, "But the menorah's message is not exclusively religious. The menorah is the primary visual symbol for a holiday that, like Christmas, has both religious and secular dimensions." The Menorah is transformed by Supreme Court edict into a semi-secular symbol despite it being the public display of a patently religious commemoration. The Menorah, however, can still be challenged. But the Supreme Court further stated, "it would be a form of discrimination against Jews to allow Pittsburgh to celebrate Christmas as a cultural tradition while simultaneously disallowing the city's acknowledgment of Chanukah as a contemporaneous cultural tradition." It was therefore only the proximity of the Menorah to the tree that allowed for them both to stand. As Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in his opinion, "Before studying this case, I had not known the full history of the menorah, and I suspect the same was true of my colleagues... This Court is ill-equipped to sit as a national theology board, and I question both the wisdom and the constitutionality of its doing so."
The Supreme Court is clearly in its majority made up of cowards. For if they really wanted to ban religious displays on public property, the Christmas tree would be first on the chopping block. Yet the declaration from our highest court is that the Christmas tree, lit every year by members of Congress on the National mall, is a "secular symbol." This should serve as obvious evidence of the convoluted nature of Supreme Court precedent. In the same Allegheny case the Supreme Court wrote that "[t]he widely accepted view of the Christmas tree" is that it is "the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday." No doubt the Federal holiday that is Christmas day must be considered a "secular holiday" if one buys into Supreme Court claptrap. In all obviousness, however, the Christmas holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus. A tree to commemorate that event can in no way be considered "secular." It may be considered a pleasant and even beautiful public adornment that all have grown accustomed to seeing in preparation and celebration of the Christian holiday, but it cannot be sensibly considered "secular." The Supreme Court has bestowed upon itself the power to declare religious symbols it is too afraid to remove as "secular," while maintaining the power to get rid of other religious displays from the public square.
The fact is that it should be more than evident from just a brief look at religious displays jurisprudence that Supreme Court precedent is baseless in its rulings and untrustworthy as a source of legitimate Constitutional interpretation. It is therefore critical to look to the original meaning of the Constitution.
MADISON AND THE PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL BACKDROP AGAINST RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT
Thomas Paine wrote in his famous book Common Sense in 1776: "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of every government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith...For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us: it affords a larger field for our Christian kindness." In other words, the duty of government is to protect individual religious liberty of various kinds, though not to establish a church that has government backing or become involved by law in a religion's affairs. Madison would make this clear in his efforts on behalf of religious liberty in Virginia less than a decade later.
The great orator of the Revolution Patrick Henry pushed for a bill which would have taxed Virginians to support "Teachers of the Christian Religion." James Madison opposed the measure, and wrote a famed pamphlet in the summer of 1785 called the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. Madison's efforts, in large measure, lead Henry's bill to die quietly in the fall session of the assembly. In this brief pamphlet Madison lays out the entire Enlightenment case for disestablishment of religion. In it he calls the assessment a "dangerous abuse of power," pointing out that the "the Legislative Body...are but the creatures and vicegerents of" society with a "jurisdiction [that] is both derivative and limited." It therefore has no legitimate power to exercise dominion over religious affairs. Because "we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." Implying that "the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy...is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world...[and] an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." In fact, Madison even amazingly not only says that government should not establish one sect of Christianity over another or that there is an inherent right to be irreligious, but even that government should not favor Christianity over other religions:
[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?There is "no such authority" for special taxes to support "teachers of the Christian religion," which constitutes a "dangerous...usurpation."
Madison does end the pamphlet "by earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth." Madison's pamphlet arguing against the legislation itself includes a heartfelt prayer and public acknowledgment of God. But it recognizes that the power of government is one that must be limited, especially when government wants to use its power to meddle in religious conscience and force a citizen to donate their income to a Christian educator. One must understand that this provides an early example of the original meaning of illegitimate religious establishment just a few years before the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. To specially tax the people to support a particular religion, to use the coercive arm of government to promote one religion over another, is to violate the natural rights of the people.
Madison's efforts would culminate with the Virginia Staute for Religious Freedom enacted in 1786. It was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, and was eventually one of only three accomplishments Jefferson instructed be put in his epitaph. It stated in part that "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess...their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." It was Madison who succeeded in getting the act passed, even defeating attempts in the Virgnia House of Delegates to confine religious freedom to Christians alone. Madison would flatter himself for achieving the true meaning of religious liberty having "extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind."
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND ITS ORIGINAL MEANING
The Bill of Rights were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress. They were adopted by Congress in 1789, and came into full effect with the States' ratification in 1791. Madison specifically stated in the House of Representatives in 1789 that the Amendment was introduced because "the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." He also explained that he "apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." It is these statements that provide the most direct and simple evidence of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause forbids favoring one sect or religion over another, and any law that results in compulsion in religious conscience.
No Framer of the Constitution, Madison most certainly included, would have thought that the American system they brought into existence could somehow ban public prayer and recognition of religion. They understood that they were providing for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776, that Independence Day "ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty." Starting with 1776 the Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal" and that being "endowed by their Creator" with unalienable rights is itself the source of rights. Certainly the Declaration in no way violates the Constitution's intent or spirit.
In fact, the religion clauses of the First Amendment were adopted by the House of Representatives on September 24, 1789. It was just one day later that the House approved a resolution of prayer and thanksgiving, acknowledging “the many signal favors of Almighty God” in helping establish their new political system. They further requested that President Washington issue a proclamation, which still serves as the origin of our Thanksgiving holiday. Washington's proclamation begins by boldly declaring that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." In his 1796 Farewell address he would again reiterate this point, stating that "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
That being said, the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and not the States. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the 1833 ruling of Barron v. Baltimore: "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated." It was only interpretation of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment through the doctrine of "incorporation" that has allowed Madisonian principles to apply equally to State laws. The aforementioned shows that this is how Madison would have probably preferred it given his noble achievements in Virginia.
Religion, therefore, was originally intended to be left to State level determinations. This is why the first four words of the First Amendment, which immediately precede the Establishment Clause, are “Congress shall make no law" (emphasis added). In fact, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified and long thereafter, the Connecticut establishment lasting until 1818, and Massachusetts's until 1833. In fact, Madison's proposed First Amendment stated “nor shall any national religion be established,” but Roger Sherman of Massachusetts and Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut with others in committee would rewrite this to say that there be no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This was meant to say that Congress could not pass any law on the subject of religion at all, including any on State establishments of religion. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution: "[T]he whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national [federal] councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."
WHAT ABOUT THE "WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE"?
Perhaps the most oft heard expression relating to Constitutional questions from any laymen aside from "freedom of speech," is the "separation of Church and State." Many are not even aware that this phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution itself. It is not an expression from the debates in Congress when the First Amendment was proposed, nor from when the Bill of Rights was ratified by the States. As a matter of original meaning of the Constitution, it is certainly by definition therefore of a much weaker sort of evidence.
Where the phrase is actually from is a letter sent by President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The Danbury Baptists had earlier written Jefferson with fears that "our constitution of government is not specific." They worried that some would argue that "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." While they were "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," they strongly hoped "that the sentiment 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--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth." Their fear was not too many memorial crosses, Chanukah Menorahs, or public prayers. It was fear of persecution by their State of Connecticut which still had an established Congregationalist Church.
President Jefferson famously responded, in what he could never have known would contain what is his most well-known expression:
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, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.He gave the Baptists the solace they were looking for: the President's support for religious freedom. Even though his letter specifically spoke of "their legislature," clearly referencing the Federal Congress, Jefferson maintained that it was this ideal that would guide the nation in protecting freedom of religion. If the Establishment Clause is to be applied to the States via interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, then what this expression meant must be understood. It meant to protect religious minorities who feared their own religious beliefs and practices would be legislated against in favor of a majority religion. What it obviously has very little do with is the laughable state of contemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence.
In fact this sort of letter was very much in line with the same kinds written by President George Washington. In 1793 he wrote to the New Church in Baltimore that "[w]e have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States." A few years earlier, in 1790, Moses Seixas sent a letter to Washington fearing that under the new Constitution Jews might still not fare well. Washington replied to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island:
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
In fact, the words on the Jefferson Memorial must also be remembered along with discussions of separation of Church and State: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
MADISON'S VETO AGAINST "RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT BY LAW"
The use of the Presidential veto by James Madison against federal laws he believed violated the Establishment clause should also be noted. On February 8, 1811 Congress passed a bill for the Alexandria Episcopalians' incorporation. The bill regulated selection of the minister and other rules for the congregation, making them a matter of civil law. Madison vetoed the bill and the House did not override his veto. His veto message stated the reasons for stopping the law:
Because the Bill exceeds the rightful authority, to which Governments are limited by the essential distinction between Civil and Religious functions, and violates, in particular, the Article of the Constitution of the United States which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a Religious establishment." The Bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the Church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the Minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein, by the particular Society, or by the General Church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular Church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration... Because the Bill vests in the said incorporated Church, an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same, an authority, which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.Only days later Madison again had an opportunity to veto another law and explain the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. The issue this time was an "act for the relief of...the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory." Madison vetoed the legislation explaining that "the Bill, in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church, comprizes a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States, for the use and support of Religious Societies." This the Constitution could not allow.
The Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a church with the force of law. It does not allow special treatment of one Church over any other. It does not allow for the dole of government appropriations to specifically target a religious group. It does not allow for a specific religion to be favored by law over others. This is the message that Madison sent with his vetoes.
CONCLUSION
Tench Coxe would write in his 1791 Notes on the United States of America that religious "toleration" is in fact not an American ideal:
Almost every sect and form of Christianity is known here--as also the Hebrew church [i.e., Judaism]. None are tolerated. All are admitted, aided by mutual charity and concord, and supported and cherished by the laws... Mere toleration is a doctrine exploded by our general condition; instead of which have been substituted an unqualified admission, and assertion, "that their own modes of worship and of faith equally belong to all the worshippers of God, of whatever church, sect, or denomination."America stands above mere toleration of various religious beliefs and differing faith practices. This is precisely because, as the Supreme Court declared in the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clauson, "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Therefore recognition of religious belief, even of differing kinds, must be recognized as essential to the American tradition. Justice Antonin Scalia wittingly observed in his concurrence with the 1993 decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District: "What a strange notion, that a Constitution which itself gives 'religion in general' preferential treatment (I refer to the Free Exercise Clause) forbids endorsement of religion in general."
Today we instead have Supreme Court precedent that unbelievably even states that for a clergy (in the specific case before the Court, a female Rabbi) to offer prayer as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is violative of the Establishment Clause. As Justice Scalia pointed out in the 1992 dissent to this Lee v. Weisman decision: "Our religion clause jurisprudence has become bedeviled (so to speak) by reliance on formulaic abstractions that are not derived from, but positively conflict with, our long accepted constitutional traditions."
President John Adams wrote in a letter in 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." We must return to the original more simple meaning of the Establishment Clause. The Constitution as originally adopted had no influence on State laws regarding religion. Even so the original meaning is still most obviously applicable to any Federal law, and because the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted to apply the prohibitions that at first were only meant for Federal legislation to State laws as well, then it can only mean the prohibition that that the Founders had meant to apply Federally must then be extended to the more local levels of government. Before the first delegate arrived at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison was laying the groundwork for what religious freedom in America meant. He made this clear when he expounded on the meaning of the First Amendment during Congressional debates discussing it while it was still just a proposal. Jefferson's "separation of Church and State" is but an eloquent phrase for the very same principles.
These principles are that actual compulsion in religion is absolutely forbidden by the Constitution. That establishment of a Church under the force of law is certainly disallowed. That freedom of religion is the most essential liberty tied to the freedom to think and believe as one wishes without government interference. That to use government coercion to specifically support one religion over another is strictly forbidden. That for the dominant religion to oppress a religious minority is inexcusable tyranny. It has nothing to do with religious displays on holidays or a prayer at a school ceremony. Let us follow the Founder's Constitution, and not an inexcusable one perverted by the Supreme Court that is forced to declare Christmas trees "secular." A return to the original meaning will better protect true religious liberty, end arbitrary rule by five appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court, and mean a remarkable outstanding step has occurred in restoring the lost Constitution. Tweet
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Obama Turns Back The Clock On Welfare Reform
The Heritage Foundation explains:
The Obama directive bludgeons the letter and intent of the actual reform legislation...In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work. The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law.Tweet
Monday, July 16, 2012
President Barack Obama: "Somebody Invested In Roads And Bridges. If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That"
Of course you or anyone else can and should appreciate the help from the likes of parents or other mentors. But that misses the point. Obama specifically is talking about private accomplishments being beholden to the "American system" of government, that our own private labor is somehow indebted to government because of a public bridge or road. This is absurd. It completely distorts the quintessential American view of government. James Wilson declared at the Pennsyvania Ratifying Convention in 1787, "We the People - it [the Constitution] is announced in their name, it is clothed with their authority, from whom all power originated and ultimately belong. Magna Carta is the grant of a king. This Constitution is the act of the people, and what they have not expressly granted, they have retained." The private earnings and successes of citizens are not the credit of the sovereign. The sovereign is granted authority by the body politic consisting of private individuals to protect the citizen's rights and property.
What's troubling is this stuff about how because the government built a road or a bridge that somehow, herego, "you didn’t build that" business. It's this mentality that somehow the government is entitled to your earnings more than you are. That's what he's getting at here that's concerning. It's not a humble recognition that some taxes are needed for essential services or programs. It's an attitude that outright says that people who make money have no greater right to what is theirs because they have traveled on public roads. All earnings are essentially public earnings, and it is government's grace that allows you to keep it because it has as much (if not greater) credit for the income you make. If you disagree, please explain what the heck he's talking about roads for right before declaring "if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that"?
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)