JohnStOnge
Member
- Jul 8, 2005
- 321
- 43
- 16
what I am suggesting is that is unscientific, illogical, and lacking common sense for them to invite lawsuits and act like they are
1) unaware of the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or to act like they are
2) actively trying to subvert it.”
Perhaps they DO recognize what the Establishment Clause actually says and are expressing their opposition to the way it's when "interpreted" by the Judiciary. Here is what it actually says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Violation of the Establishment Clause would involve the Congress of the United States making a law with respect to the establishment of Religion. Nothing the Texas legislature has done or even can do violates that clause. Now, I realize that the Judiciary "interpreted" the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow extend that restriction to State Legislatures, but such an interpretation is laughable. There is no way those who ratified the 14th Amendment understood that to be the case when they did so. What we have here is a classic case of the Judiciary making things up. Maybe some people don't like that.
What we have is the argument that the 1st Amendment saying that the Congress of the United States will make no law respecting estabishment of Religion combined with the 14th Amendment saying "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that a State legislature can't make a law requiring some kind of religous context in education. That's ridiculous. It really is.
Also, one really has to question the broad manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted "establishment of religion" because the Congress, shortly after the 1st Amendment was ratified, did such things as start holding Christian church services in the House chamber.
People really, really need to learn to start making the distinction between what the Constitution actually says and how its language was generally understood by those involved in ratifying any particular portion of it and what the Federal Judiciary "interprets" it to say. They are two completely different things. There is no way...none...that the overwhelming majority of those involved in ratifying the 1st Amendment construed it as the Judiciary has distorted it over the years.
Last edited: