This ruling provides an excellent opportunity to outreach to Christians and other theists to take their children out of the government schools and to abolish the government school system. Unfortunately, too few Libertarians and libertarians are psychologically well-suited to outreach to Christians. If the decision is reversed, it will also provide an excellent opportunity for L(l)ibertarians to outreach to atheists and agnostics to do likewise with their children.
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Govt Coerced Religious Practices by Kids The topic WAS the US Supreme Court deciding if it's ok for govt to coerce religious practices by children in 'public' (govt) schools; specifically, reciting the words 'under God' as a class during the plege of allegiance. The legitimacy of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution can certainly be attacked. That is also true for any part or all of the US Constitution. However, the US Supreme Court professes to decide cases based on 'constitutionality' They traditionally reject appeals that attack constitutional legitimacy; as in the 13th amendment for example. So, like it or not, the 'school plege recital' case may be decided based on BOTH 1st and 14th amendment arguments. Why are some SO eager to have GOVT coerce their religion upon those who did NOT join their church? Jesus would NEVER have asked Ceaser for that kind of 'help' -Terry Liberty Parker AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV via Yellow Pages at www.PeerCast.org --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Here is an update of the classic research by the late Constitutional > scholar, > Dan Smoot which proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally > ratified > and describes the horrendous consequences, including the growth of the > federal > government and the severe erosion of our liberties. > It is somewhat long but very worthwhile reading. I have deleted the > repetitions > and put the three parts of the article in proper order. > > For life and liberty, > David Macko > > > > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT! > > Part 1 > > > > > > By Albert Burns > > July 8, 2005 > > NewsWithViews.com > > > > "Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the > > worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment > > of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to > > prevent as well as to correct abuse." -- Thomas Jefferson to the > > Washington Tammany Society, 1809. > > > > At a time when the Founding Fathers of this country, and the > > Constitution they established, are continually being denigrated and "mean > > mouthed" by educators, the mass media and others, it cannot be repeated > > TOO OFTEN that the Constitution is a limitation on the GOVERNMENT, and NOT > > on individuals. It does NOT, and was not intended to, prescribe or > > proscribe the conduct of private citizens, but only the CONDUCT of > > government and those to whom governmental power had been granted. In its > > most basic aspects, it is NOT a charter for government, but rather a > > charter of PROTECTION of citizens FROM their government. > > > > The basic Constitution, itself, was a statement of strictly limited > > governmental powers. Then the great Bill of Rights was added to even > > further define what the government COULD NOT DO!!! Amendments 1 through 9 > > specify certain things which the government was NOT allowed to do and then > > the incredible Tenth Amendment which says, in effect, "If we forgot > > anything else, you CAN'T do that EITHER!" They did everything they could > > to protect future generations. > > > > Unfortunately, as always throughout human history, there arose those > > who were determined to gain more and more centralized power. At the end of > > the Civil War (the War Between The States for you Southerners) the time > > was ripe for a major move in that direction. In 1865, the 13th, 14th and > > 15th Amendments to the Constitution were introduced in Congress by the > > Republican Party (yes, the Republican Party was at it even back in 1865!). > > The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery was immediately ratified by the > > required three quarters of the States including all the southern States > > except Mississippi and Texas. > > > > The 14th Amendment was never legal nor Constitutional from its very > > inception. The Constitution mandates that proposed amendments must be > > approved by two thirds of both houses of Congress. In December of 1865, > > the radicals in control of Congress refused to allow the legally elected > > Representatives and Senators from the southern States to be seated. Hence, > > at that point, Congress itself was unconstitutional. However, even > > disregarding that technicality, when the vote of those who WERE seated as > > part of the House was taken, out of 184 Representatives, only 120 voted in > > favor of the resolution. Two thirds of the 184 would have required 123 to > > vote in favor. In spite of the failure to get sufficient votes to > > constitutionally pass the resolution, the leadership of Congress > > arbitrarily declared the Resolution passed. Congress then submitted the > > 14th Amendment to all the states for ratification, INCLUDING the States > > which had already been DENIED representation in the Congress! > > > > The 14th Amendment was soundly defeated when it was rejected by all > > but one of the southern States and all of the so-called "border" States. > > Iowa and Massachusetts had also failed to ratify it by the beginning of > > March, 1867. The radicals had only 21 ratifications of the 28 needed. What > > to do? > > > > Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled the Congress > > at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867. This > > incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the legal > > governments of all ten of the southern States which had refused to ratify > > the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military dictatorship. The > > generals placed in command of these dictatorships were required by the > > Reconstruction Act to prepare the "rolls of voters" for conventions which > > would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone who had served > > in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to hold office - > > in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and Johnson > > granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear allegiance to the > > U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these "new" legislatures > > ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the union. > > > > In other words, this illegal Congress - for purposes of excluding > > Representatives and Senators from southern states - considered those > > states OUT of the union. For purposes of getting the 14th Amendment > > ratified, this Congress considered the states IN the union. When they > > refused to ratify the amendment, the Congress simply abolished their > > governments and set up "reconstruction" legislatures, controlled by > > northern military power. Now these states were again treated as OUT of the > > union until they ratified the 14th Amendment - although the Constitution > > clearly requires that only states which are IN the union may act on > > amendments. > > > > By July, 1868, Iowa and Massachusetts and six of the "reconstructed" > > states had ratified this 14th Amendment which would have added 8 states to > > the original 21 states for a total of 29 ratifications. HOWEVER, the > > legislators of two northern states had been so incensed by the whole > > outrageous manner in which this amendment was being forced through that > > they had RESCINDED their previous ratifications. (Illinois rescinded on > > January 15, 1868 and New Jersey on March 24, 1868.) Therefore, there were > > only 27 ratifications when 28 were required. > > > > > > > > On July 20, 1868, then Secretary of State William Seward proclaimed > > that 3/4 of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment IF the legislatures > > in the six former confederate states were authentically organized and IF > > Illinois and New Jersey were NOT allowed to rescind their ratifications. > > The radical Congress did not like this equivocation and on July 21, 1868, > > Congress passed a joint resolution simply DECLARING that the 14th > > Amendment was a part of the Constitution and directing Seward to declare > > it legally ratified. > > Such is a small part of the sordid history of the 14th Amendment as > > researched by constitutional scholar, Dan Smoot. In our next column, we > > will examine WHY the radicals of the time (and since) were so dead set on > > getting this change introduced into our Constitution and WHY it is > > essential that we recognize the consequences to all of us. > > > > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT! > > PART 2 > > > > > > By Albert Burns > > July 20, 2005 > > NewsWithViews.com > > > > In our previous article on this subject, we discussed the incredible > > manner through which the 14th Amendment was maneuvered into the > > Constitution The ostensible reason why the Republican radicals worked so > > hard to get the 14th Amendment to the Constitution DECLARED as ratified > > (however spurious that ratification might be) was to guarantee the freedom > > and rights of former slaves. However, history has shown that to have been > > of negligible concern to those in power. > > > > It is interesting to note that Alexis DeToqueville, in his book > > "Democracy In America", published in 1835, wrote that racial prejudice was > > stronger in the North than in the South. He stated: "The prejudice of race > > appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in > > those where it still exists." > > > > Northern states enacted discriminatory "black codes" long before they > > came into being in ANY southern state. Illinois, in 1848, Oregon, in 1857, > > Indiana, in 1862, all had laws severely restricting the rights of blacks > > and mulattos who were not allowed to enter into legal contracts, could not > > testify in court against whites, were not allowed to immigrate, legally, > > into these states or if they did come in had to post a $1000 bond to > > guarantee that they would behave "properly." > > > > Other northern states and cities had similar laws. Northern > > newspapers such as the Philadelphia Daily News, the Daily Chicago Times, > > and even the New York Times were printing blatantly racist editorials. > > Some of the radical legislators in Congress who forced through the 14th > > Amendment had previously supported the discriminatory laws in their own > > home states. No, Southern racism was NOT the primary reason for the 14th > > Amendment! > > > > Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the document declaring that the > > 14th Amendment was officially a part of the Constitution, efforts began to > > be made to use Section 1, of the amendment, as a weapon to destroy the > > rights of the individual states or the citizens therein. > > > > Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "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." (Emphasis added) > > > > As previously stated, the Constitution was designed to regulate the > > power and activities of the FEDERAL government. The Bill of Rights was > > added to the Constitution to further spell out the activities which the > > FEDERAL government could NOT DO! Amendments 9 and 10 were deliberately > > added to PROTECT the States and their affairs FROM interference by the > > federal government. For instance, it was universally recognized that while > > Congress could NOT make any law respecting the establishment of religion, > > several of the individual STATES which ratified the Constitution AND the > > Bill of Rights DID have established STATE religions. > > > > With the addition of the 14th Amendment, groups and individuals began > > to file cases in federal courts claiming that this amendment GAVE the > > federal government AUTHORITY to supervise the activities of both state and > > local governments - an exact reversal of the original intent of the > > Founding Fathers. The first case which advanced this doctrine reached the > > Supreme Court in 1873. That Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment did > > NOT grant such authority to the federal government. > > > > There was a clear intent in succeeding years to transform our > > "federal" system into a "centralized" government system by transferring > > all rights and powers of the individual States to Washington. Those who > > wanted to achieve this result kept bringing cases attacking states' rights > > to the Supreme Court in an effort to get the Court to change its position > > on this vital point. According to a study called "The Constitution of the > > United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: Annotations of > > Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 30, 1952," > > also known as Senate Document No. 170, the position of the Court began to > > weaken at the beginning of the 1900s, and by the 1930s the Supreme Court > > had begun to, tentatively, assume jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment to > > act as "censor upon...legislation of the States." > > > > > > > > With the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme > > Court by Dwight Eisenhower, the Court began to simply USURP power under > > the "equal protection" phrase of the 14th Amendment, to do ANYTHING > > desired by a majority of the Court. The "equal protection" doctrine has > > been used by the Court to impose FEDERAL mandates upon the States in such > > areas as education, voting rights, abortion, religious instruction, labor > > disputes, and the list goes on and on. Precisely the kind of judicial > > tyranny which Thomas Jefferson warned of when he described federal judges > > as those who would be "constantly working underground to undermine the > > foundations of our confederated fabric." > > > > > > In our next article we will examine how previous Supreme Courts > > viewed such usurpation and some of the consequences of that usurpation to > > our current society. > > > > > > > > > > > > ILLEGALITY OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT! > > PART 3 > > > > By Albert Burns > > July 24, 2005 > > NewsWithViews.com > > > > In the early 1950s, the U.S. Senate commissioned a study of U.S. > > Supreme Court Cases, paid for by Congress and published by the Government > > Printing Office. That document which we have previously mentioned was The > > Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation: > > Annotations of Cases Decided by The Supreme Court Of The United States to > > June 3, 1952. It was published as Senate Document 170. > > > > Study of that document by Constitutional scholar, Dan Smoot, revealed > > that the Supreme Court had actually converted the Bill of Rights into a > > weapon to destroy the powers of state governments and for abridging or > > abolishing the rights of our citizens. This was done, primarily, through > > claiming that the never properly ratified 14th Amendment had "absorbed" > > the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) making > > them applicable to state governments! > > > > Several earlier decisions, the first in 1833, by the Supreme Court > > had emphatically stated that the limitations on governmental power > > contained in the Bill of Rights applied strictly to the federal government > > and did NOT apply, in any way, to state governments. A simple reading of > > those first ten amendments makes that abundantly clear to any honest > > reader. > > > > In our previous column, we mentioned that the first time a U.S. > > Supreme Court considered the implications of the 14th Amendment was in > > 1873. In that case, the Supreme Court, as recorded in Document 170 ruled > > that the real purpose of the 14th Amendment was: "...to centralize in the > > hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by the > > States....This expansive alteration of the Federal System was to have been > > achieved by converting the rights of the citizens of each State as of the > > date of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment into privileges and > > immunities of United States citizenship...." That court ruled that would > > have been "to transfer the security and protection of all the civil > > rights...to the Federal Government...to bring within the power of Congress > > the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the > > states" and to "constitute this court a PERPETUAL CENSOR upon the > > legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with > > authority to nullify such as it did not approve...." (Emphasis added.) The > > jurists of that court could clearly see what the implications of the 14th > > Amendment were. > > > > In 1877, the Supreme Court again reaffirmed the constitutional > > doctrine from the 1873 case. It was a case dealing with state power to > > regulate rates charged for the transportation of grain. In this 1877 case, > > the court stated: "We know that this power may be abused; but....for > > protection against abuses by (state) legislatures the people must resort > > to the polls, NOT TO THE COURTS." (Emphasis added) > > > > By 1905, the Supreme Court had heard and decided at least twenty more > > cases involving the 14th Amendment, ALWAYS reaffirming the fact that it > > DID NOT extend the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights to state > > governments. In 1905, the Supreme Court finally overturned a STATE law > > (Lochner vs. New York) on the grounds that the law violated the "due > > process" clause of the 14th Amendment. > > > > It was the beginning of the end for our original Constitutional > > system. In highly prophetic words, Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, > > saying: "No evils arising from ...[state] legislation could be more far > > reaching than those that might come to our system of government if the > > judiciary, abandoning the sphere assigned to it by the fundamental law, > > should enter the domain of legislation, and upon grounds merely of justice > > or reason or wisdom annum statute that had received the sanction of the > > people's representatives." > > > > In 1925, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gitlow vs. New York, fully > > implemented the doctrine that the 14th Amendment had "absorbed" the Bill > > of Rights and extended the prohibitions of the First Amendment to include > > state governments. This gave the Supreme Court the power to supervise the > > legislation of state governments. In that case, the Court stated: "For > > present purposes WE MAY AND DO ASSUME that freedom of speech and of the > > press - which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgement 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." (Emphasis added) > > > > > > Finally, in a burst of arrogance, in 1954, in the Brown vs. Topeka > > case, the Warren Supreme Court, using the 14th Amendment "absorption" > > doctrine, abandoned the principle of Stare Decisis (that the court should > > be guided by previous Supreme Court decisions) and fabricated a wholly new > > doctrine: that the Supreme Court could CHANGE the Constitution at will, > > taking no regard for law, the clear meaning of words or former precedent. > > > > From the date of that decision, American citizens have not really > > had a Constitution at all. Until we, the people of this country, force > > Congress to use its power to rein in the Supreme Court, our Constitution > > is WHATEVER an oligarchy of NINE men and women in Washington SAY it is!!! > > > > © 2005 Albert Burns - All Rights Reserved > > > > Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts > > > > E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale > > > > > > Albert Burns was born 1924 and brought up in Elizabeth, NJ. Enlisted > > in the Air Force in September, 1942. Sent to Boca Raton, Florida to begin > > Officer training. Graduated as a Second Lieutenant. Attended University of > > Arizona to study Civil Engineering. > > > > Albert moved to Lima, Peru as Assistant Supervisor of Construction, > > with the U.S. Foreign Buildings Division of the State Department. Worked > > on the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Office Building in Lima. After > > completion, he was transferred to Mexico City to work on the construction > > of the new Embassy. > > > > Joined the John Birch Society in 1967. Was a chapter leader, section > > leader and eventually served for several years as the Coordinator in > > Hawaii. Once he got on the Internet about ten years ago, he began writing > > articles in an effort to alert fellow Americans to what was taking place > > in America which the vast majority were unaware of. He has been studying > > and writing, ever since. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
