Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

The Lie of “Separation of Church and State” & the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpations of Power.

By Publius Huldah.

1.  How did it happen that our country became a land where Christian children are forbidden to use the word, “God”, in the public schools; public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games; and Christian religious speech is banned from the public square?  Read on, and I will show you how judges on the supreme Court perverted our Constitution, prohibited the Free Exercise of Religion, and abridged our Freedom of Speech.

2.  We must begin by learning what our Constitution says – and doesn’t say – about “religion” and “speech”.  The three branches of federal government:  Legislative Branch (Art I), Executive Branch (Art II), and Judicial Branch (Art III), have only the enumerated powers delegated to them in the Constitution.  All “legislative” powers granted in the Constitution are vested in Congress (Art I, §1).  This means that no other branch may make law.  Since the legislative powers of Congress are enumerated, Congress may make laws only on those specific subjects listed in the Constitution as proper objects of legislation.  Since “religion” & “speech” are not among the listed powers, Congress may not make any laws about religion or speech.

3. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

What is an “established religion”?  I will show you how judges on the supreme Court changed the historical definition of that term so that they could eradicate the Christian religion from our public square and eliminate speech they don’t like.  We will begin by finding out what “establishment of religion” actually meant when the Constitution was ratified.  To do so, we must consult English history, American colonial history, and writings of our Founders.

Established Religion in England.

4. Queen Mary I (“Bloody Mary”), who reigned between 1553-1558, deposed The Church of England which her Father, Henry VIII, had established; re-established the Roman Catholic Church, and burned approximately 300 Protestant dissenters at stake.

Elizabeth I, who reigned between 1558-1603, restored the Church of England. Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity (1559), imposed fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment on church officials who did not conform to approved doctrine & practice; and imposed fines on all persons who, without sufficient excuse, did not attend services of the Church of England. Additional laws illustrative of English Church History from 1558-1640 are here.

During the reign of Charles II (1661-1685), the Puritan John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress, was imprisoned for 11 years because he refused to attend services of the established Church of England, and he refused to obtain a license to preach as a “nonconformist”.

5. The established religions in England, first Roman Catholic, and then Church of England, were supported by “tithes” – mandatory payments of a percentage of the produce of the land, payable by those living within the parish (regardless of their religious preferences) to the parish church, to support it and its clergy:


The payment of tithes was a cause of endless dispute between the tithe owners and the tithe payers – between clergy and parishioners – … In addition, Quakers and other non-conformists objected to paying any tithes to support the established church.  Almost every agricultural process and product attracted controversy over its tithe value.   By the eighteenth century the complex legislation surrounding the tithe began to have a detrimental effect … Tithing was seen as increasingly  irrelevant to the needs of the community and the developing agricultural industry.

6. So!  The essential characteristic of “established religion” in England up to the time of the  founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church.

Established Religions in the AmericanColonies.

7. English settlers in the colonies promptly established their religions.  In Massachusetts, where  they established the Congregational Church, only church members could vote between 1631-1664; dissenters (Roger Williams, etc.) were banished; and between 1650-1670, Quakers were whipped, imprisoned, banished, and put to death.  In Virginia, where they established the Church of England, penalties for failure to attend services during the early 1600’s included death, prison, and fines. 1 In Maryland, where they established the Church of England, between 1704-1775, Roman Catholic (“RC”) services could be held only in private homes, RCs could not teach school,  inheritance of property by RCs was restricted, and RCs who would not take a certain oath were disfranchised and subject to additional taxes, as well as being forced to contribute to the established church.  In Virginia at this time, RCs were forbidden to possess arms, give evidence in court, or hold office unless they took certain oaths.  New York and Massachusetts made laws which stayed on the books until the Revolution directing all RCs to leave the realm.  Rhode Island’s laws between 1719-1783 prohibited RCs from being freeman or office holders.  Not until 1783 were RC’s given full political rights in Rhode Island.  In Virginia, no marriage was legal unless performed by a minister of the Church of England. 2

Everyone in Virginia, Maryland, and North & South Carolina was required to contribute to the support of the established Church of England, to maintain the building, pay the minister’s salary, and provide him with a house and plot of land.  New York required each county to hire a “good sufficient” Protestant minister and to levy taxes for his support.  By 1760, the Congregational Church was still established in Massachusetts and Connecticut; but Episcopalians, Baptists and Quakers were now tolerated, and no longer required to support of the Congregational Church. 3 Presbyterians of Chester, N.H. objected to being taxed to support the Congregational minister, and in 1740 won the right to be taxed only for their own denomination.  Even so, in 1807, the Presbyterians in Chester sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!

Writings of Our Founders.

8.  As the Spirit of Toleration grew in England and colonial America, criminal penalties for dissenting from the tax-supported established religions were abolished.  By 1776, the essential characteristic of “established religions”, as opposed to “tolerated religions”, was that the former were supported by tax money (or tithes assessed & collected by law); whereas the latter were supported by voluntary contributions alone.  Benjamin Franklin wrote in The London Packet, June 3, 1772 of colonial Americans:

They went from England to establish a new country … where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion … they granted the lands out in townships, requiring … that the freeholders should forever support a gospel minister (meaning probably one of the then governing sects) … Thus, what is commonly called Presbyterianism became the established religion of that country.  All went on well in this way while the same religious opinions were general, the support of minister … being raised by a proportionate tax on the lands.  But in process of time, some becoming Quakers, some Baptists, and … some returning to the Church of England … objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they … had forsaken.  The civil magistrates, however, continued for a time to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws which remained in force … a payment which it was thought no honest man ought to avoid under the pretense of his having changed his religious persuasion. … But the practice being clamoured against by the episcopalians as persecution, the legislature of the Province of the Massachusets-Bay, near thirty years since, passed an act for their relief, requiring indeed the tax to be paid as usual, but directing that the … sums levied from members of the Church of England, should be paid over to the Minister of that Church, with whom such members usually attended divine worship, which Minister had power given him to receive and on occasion to recover the same by law. [emphasis in boldface added; italics in original]

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1775 in his “Remarks on the Quebec Bill” (No. 11):

The characteristic difference between a tolerated and established religion, consists in this: With respect to the support of the former, the law is passive and improvident, leaving it to those who profess it, to make as much, or as little, provision as they … judge expedient; and to vary and alter that provision, as their circumstances may require.  In this manner, the Presbyterians, and other sects, are tolerated in England.  They are allowed to exercise their religion without molestation, and to maintain their clergy as they think proper.  These are wholly dependent upon their congregations, and can exact no more than they stipulate and are satisfied to contribute.  But with respect to the support of the latter, the law is active and provident.  Certain precise dues, (tithes &c.,) are legally annexed to the clerical office, independent on the liberal contributions of the people …While tithes were the free … gift of the people … the Roman church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment. [emphasis added]

James Madison wrote in his letter of 1832 to Rev. Adams:

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna. and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals…

9. So! The essential characteristic of an “established religion” by 1789 was that an “established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, but “tolerated” denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents.  Benjamin Franklin’s  fascinating letter of 1772 shows that the hot topic of the time was the forcing of dissenters to financially support established religion:  In England, dissenters from the Church of England were forced to pay tithes to the clergy of that Church. The English supporters of the Church of England responded that the “dissenters” in America had no room to complain because they compelled American Anglicans to pay taxes to support the Presbyterian worship!

Whose Powers Are Restricted By The First Amendment?

10.  Before we look at supreme Court opinions banning the free exercise of religion & abridging free speech, we must consider:  Whose powers are restricted by The First Amendment?  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

The plain language shows that the First Amendment restricts only Congress’ powers! The People of the States are free to establish (or dis-establish) any religion they want – this is one of the powers retained by the States or the People!  Several States did retain their established religions after ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.  We saw that in 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, N.H. sold a Quaker’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax.  Not until the Toleration Act of 1819 did the Legislature of N.H. make it illegal for towns, as corporate bodies, to raise money for the support of the gospel. Connecticut did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until they adopted their Constitution of 1818 (see Article Seventh). Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational Church until 1833.

11. So! The First Amendment (1) prohibits Congress from establishing a national denominational religion, (2) prohibits Congress from interfering in the States’ establishments of the religions of their choice, or dis-establishments thereof, and (3) prohibits Congress from abridging the Peoples’ freedom of speech.  Everyone understood that no one in the federal government had any authority to cancel, abridge, restrain or modify rights of any denomination or the States’ essential rights of liberty of conscience.  The People of Virginia said, when they ratified the U.S. Constitution:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … having … investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention … Do in the name … of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridgedrestrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by ANY authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions …We … in the name … of the People of Virginia … ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States… [emphasis added]

12. But in Gitlow v. People (1925), judges on the supreme Court asserted – without any justification in Law or Fact – that the 14th Amendment (which applies to the States) 4 incorporates the First Amendment so that the First Amendment now restricts the powers of the States!  They said:

we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment 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. We do not regard the incidental statement in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek 5 .…that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no restrictions on the States concerning freedom of speech, as determinative of this question. (p. 666)  [emphasis added]

The judges’ new interpretationof the 14th Amendment became the weapon the Court has used to silence Christians and to seize Power over States & local governments. By claiming that the First Amendment restricts the powers of the States & local governments, the Court set itself up as policeman over the States, over counties, over cities & towns, and even over football fields & court-house lawns!  In this way, the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be the States’ and The Peoples’ protection against usurpations of power by the federal government, became the weapon the supreme Court used to usurp power and force their wills on all People in Our Land.

How the Supreme Court Re-defined the Historic Term,  “Establishment of Religion”.

13. We have seen that Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison said the distinguishing characteristic of an “established religion” was that the “established” denomination was supported by mandatory taxes or tithes, whereas “tolerated” denominations were supported by voluntary offerings of their adherents.


14. Now let us see how judges on the supreme Court re-defined “establishment of religion” in order to ban prayer in public schools.  Engel v. Vitale (1962), is the case where six men outlawed non-denominational prayer in the public schools.  A public school board in New York had directed that the following prayer be said at school:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

Any student was free to remain seated or leave the room, without any comments by the teacher one way or the other.

But six men on the supreme Court said this short, non-denominational and voluntary prayer constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment!  They (Hugo Black 6 Warren, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, and Douglas) admitted that allowing school children to say this prayer did not really “establish” a “religion”!  They admitted that the prayer:

…does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others — that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago…(p.436)

Douglas wrote in his concurring opinion:

I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words.  A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. (p.442)

But these six men didn’t want children praying in school.   So, they just redefined “establishment of religion” to mean, “a religious activity”, “a prayer” (p.424), having public school children hear or recite a prayer that “somebody in government composed” (pp.425-427), “writing or sanctioning official prayers”(p.435), and “government endorsement of a prayer” (p.436).

These six men also admitted that even though no coercion was present, and even though the prayer was “denominationally neutral”, it still constituted an unlawful “establishment of religion”:

The Establishment Clause … does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. (p.430)

Douglas said in his concurring opinion:

There is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the … prayer (p.438); there is … no effort at indoctrination, and no attempt at exposition … New York’s prayer … does not involve any element of proselytizing … (p.439).

15. They thus redefined “established religion” to describe what the N.Y. public schools were doing so that they could then outlaw it.  They don’t have that right!  We have quoted Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison as showing that the essence of an “established religion” is that the civil government selects a particular religious denomination (Roman Catholic or Church of England or Congregational or Presbyterian, etc., and forces everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes. 7

16. Well!  Since the evil from which the supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale pretended it sought to protect our public school children was having them recite or hear (if they wanted to) a one-sentence non-denominational prayer which “somebody in government composed”; that monstrous evil can be avoided if the children write their own prayers, right?

17. Oh no!,  said six judges  on the supreme Court in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000).  Here, a public school district permitted, but did not require, student-initiated, student-led, nonsectarian, non-proselytizing prayer at home football games.  But Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, & Kennedy said this constituted an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment, because the prayers were “public speech” authorized by “government policy” taking place on “government property” at government sponsored school events, and the policy involved “perceived” and “actual” “government endorsement of prayer.”

The six also said on page 309-310 of their opinion:

…School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 …

Do you see?  They cite themselves – their earlier opinion in Lynch – as authority! 8Furthermore, making “nonadherents” feel like “outsiders” is not a constitutional standard; it is the judges’ own silly standard.

The six said on page 310:

…We explained in Lee that the “preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere.”  505 U.S. at 589…

Again, they cite themselves their opinion in Lee – as authority! Furthermore, the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise  ANYWHERE!

18. Again, the six judges in Santa Fe re-defined “establishment of religion” to describe what the Santa Fe School District was doing so that they could then outlaw it.

19. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist, joined by Scalia & Thomas, said the majority opinion:

…bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.  Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”… (p. 318) [emphasis added]

The One-Way Only “Wall of Separation” Between Church and State.

20. We have all heard the chant, mindlessly recited, “separation of church and state”.  Many believe this phrase is in the Constitution, and that it forbids any Christian influence in the public square. But that is false. The phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is not a constitutional principle. The First Amendment says Congress may not “legally establish one [religious] creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers”;  9 and it may not prohibit the free exercise of religion or religious speech ANYWHERE.

21. We saw that in Connecticut, the Congregational Church was the established religion until Connecticut dis-established that Church with it’s Constitution of 1818.  Earlier, on October 7, 1801, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson in which they expressed their distress that in Connecticut, where they were a religious minority,

…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; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen…


Sir, we are 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; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments 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…till…tyranny be destroyed from the earth…


These Baptists thus expressed their hope that the People of Connecticut would be influenced by Jefferson’s sentiments and dis-establish the Congregational Church in Connecticut.

22.  In his response dated January 2, 1802, Jefferson indicated that he hoped the People of Connecticut would follow the example of the “whole American people”:

…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…

Jefferson agreed that civil government ought not dictate to People in matters of religious belief, and pointed out that the First Amendment prevents Congressfrom doing this.  He did not say that religion must be relegated to the private sphere!  He used the First Amendment as his model – and it restricts only Congress, not religion.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists both knew the federal government had no authority to dis-establish Connecticut’s official Church.

23. An earlier Draft of Jefferson’s letter with recently discovered text reads:

…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 eternal separation between Church & State.  Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts… [emphasis added]

24. Dr. Hutson’s article shows that on Sunday, Jan 3, 1802, right after Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended worship services in the House of Representatives, where John Leland, a Baptist minister and well known advocate of religious liberty, preached.  During the remainder of Jefferson’s two administrations, he attended religious services conducted in the House “constantly”.  Jefferson granted “permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held…”

Jefferson had no problem with sectarian praying, preaching & communion serving on public    property!  It could be said that he “endorsed” Christianity! Those who are so determined to eradicate Christianity from our Country walk on a slender reed when they claim Jefferson as an ally.

25.  In Engel v. Vitale, Hugo Black said the reading of the prayer [“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country”] before children in the N.Y. public schools who chose to hear it:

breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State (p.425).

Even though this metaphor of  “wall of separation between church and state” is nowhere in the Constitution, this Klansman turned supreme Court justice misrepresented it as a “constitutional” principle! 10

Furthermore, Hugo Black misapplied the metaphor:  The “wall of separation” metaphor doesn’t apply to what the N.Y. public schools were doing because The State of New York isn’t “Congress”; and New York, with it’s one sentence non-denominational prayer, wasn’t “establishing a religion” . What Jefferson’s metaphor applied to was an Act of Congress selecting a particular denomination (Roman Catholic or Episcopalian or Congregational or Presbyterian, or Baptist, etc., and forcing everybody to financially support that particular denomination with taxes or tithes.

Congress may not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion anywhere – neither may the supreme Court; and that Jefferson thought “religion” should influence those in civil government is clear from all those church services & celebrations of communion which were “constantly” held in the House of Representatives and the Executive Office Building!

Lawlessness on the Court.

26.  Let us summarize what the supreme Court has done to free speech and the free exercise of religion throughout our Land. They have violated the First Amendment in four ways:

a) Even though the First Amendment expressly restricts only the law-making powers of Congress, and thus was intended to be the States’ and the Peoples’ protection from Congress; the supreme Court reversed the purpose of the First Amendment so that it became the tool the Court uses to silence speech they don’t like and to suppress the free exercise of a religion they don’t like, all throughout the States, counties, towns & villages, all the way down to football fields & county courthouse lawns.

b) Even though the First Amendment says, “an establishment of religion”, a phrase which has a distinct historical meaning, the Court from time to time re-defines the  term so as to describe the circumstances surrounding religious speech they don’t like so that they can declare it  “unconstitutional”.  In effect, they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention amending the words in the U.S. Constitution to elevate into “Law” their own WILLS.

c) They outlawed the free exercise of religion; and they outlawed free speech – when the subject is “religious” – because they don’t like it.  They took away from their Sovereign – their Creators – a right expressly reserved by us in the U.S. Constitution.  Congress may not stop people from praying anywhere, or posting The Ten Commandments anywhere, or preaching in any public areas.  Neither may the Supreme Court.  But those lawless usurpers took away OUR religions and replaced them with THEIR humanist & statist religion which they seek to force on us.

d) By claiming that their opinions have the effect of “law”, they made “laws” respecting religion, and “laws” abridging speech they don’t like, even though the federal government has no authority to act in this area.  When Congress is prohibited from making laws in an area, the supreme Court certainly may not make laws in that area!  The only way “religion” or “speech” could ever properly get before the supreme Court would be if CONGRESS VIOLATED the First Amendment and Art. I., § 8 by making a law “respecting” the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or by making a law abridging the freedom of speech.  The States and political subdivisions retained the rights to make whatever laws they please “respecting” religion (subject only to any limitations imposed by their own State Constitutions), and the U.S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere.


27. Note this well:  Federal judges do not have “lifetime appointments”.  They serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1).  The constitutional remedy for usurping federal judges is  impeachment, trial, conviction & removal.  Federalist No. 81 (8th para), A. Hamilton.

In the Year of our Lord, October 24, 2010 11

Publius Huldah.

Notes:   (Read them – they are interesting – you’ll  see!)

1 A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States, Williston Walker (1894), pp 114-149; Google digitized book.

2 A History of the United States: A Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760, Edward Channing (1908), pp 423- 454; Google digitized book.

3 Id.

4 The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) says, “…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…”

Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously researched book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with silencing Christians!

John Whitehead’s essay, “The Fading Constitution”, in The Second American Revolution, Crossway Books (1982), shows how the supreme Court turned the Bill of Rights, “which was once a source of freedom against federal governmental interference [into] a source of intervention by the federal government into the very heart of the state governments.”  PH highly recommends Whitehead’s book to lawyers & laymen alike.

5 Just three years earlier, the supreme Court said in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek (1922):

But, as we have stated, neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the states any restrictions about “freedom of speech” … nor … does it confer any right of privacy upon either persons or corporations. (page 543) [emphasis added]

Do you see?   First it doesn’t; then, three years later – it does!


6 Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, was a New Deal Democrat, a former Ku Klux Klan member, a supporter of FDR’s court-packing scheme, & FDR’s first appointment to the supreme Court.

7 The majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale is also silly.  Between the time Hugo Black changed his white robe for a black robe, he apparently didn’t study Logic: On pp. 425-427, Black discussed the 16th century Established Church of England and its Book of Common Prayer which was approved by Parliament during 1548 & 1549.  From that, Black concluded that when somebody “in government” composes a prayer, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”, even if the prayer is non-denominational & voluntary!  This is the form of Black’s argument:

1st Premise: An established religion wrote a Book of Common Prayer for the public that Parliament approved.

2nd Premise: People in NY State government wrote a one-sentence prayer for the public.

Conclusion: When people in government write a one-sentence prayer for the public, they “establish a religion”.

Oh my! Black made several errors in Logic, among which are:

(a) The dreaded “Fallacy of Four Terms”: The Premises don’t connect “establish a religion” with “people in government writing a prayer”, so the reasoning is invalid.  There are four terms in Black’s argument – and the fourth term, “establish a religion”, is introduced in the conclusion!!

(b) Black selected one of many activities engaged in by established religions – writing prayers – & concluded that anytime government performs that same activity, such constitutes an “establishment of religion”.  But established religions do many things – you can’t pick one of the things & say that if government does it, government “establishes a religion”!  That’s ridiculous!

(c) Our Founders said the defining characteristic of  “established religion” is that a particular denomination selected by civil government exists on taxes & tithes extracted from the People by force! But Black redefined the term to mean “people in government writing a prayer for the public”, so as to enable him to rule in the case then before him, that N.Y. “established a religion”.  This is the fallacy of “Victory by Definition”: one redefines the terms so that one “wins”.  It is intellectually dishonest.

8 They insert their personal views into their opinions and then, in later cases, cite those earlier personal views as authority!  This is preposterous and a classic example of the Rule of Men!  The judges’ sole authority is to decide cases properly before them; their decisions affect only the parties to the cases, and do not have the force & effect of “law” on anybody.  The Federalist No. 78, A. Hamilton.

9 “A Wall of Separation”,  by James Hutson.  The quote is in the next to the last paragraph.

10 Justice Stewart, who dissented, said in Engel v. Vitale:

Moreover, I think that the Court’s task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the “wall of separation,” a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution…(pp.445-446)

11 Art. VII, clause 2, U.S. Constitution, contains an express recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Is that “unconstitutional”?  I think not – It is, after all, “in the Constitution”.

June 19, 2009; revised October 24, 2010

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

June 19, 2009 - Posted by | 1st Amendment, Danbury Baptists, Engel v. Vitale, establishment clause, free exercise clause, Hugo Black and the KKK, Incorporation doctrine, prayer in public schools, Separation of Church and State? | , , , , , ,


  1. […] free exercise of religion & free speech, to BAN Christian speech in the public square.  See:  The Lie of “Separation of Church and State” & the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpat….  See also Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2009) for a history of the Supreme […]

    Pingback by The Proposed “28th Amendment”: Another Terrible Idea « Publius-Huldah's Blog | December 21, 2014 | Reply

  2. I may personally agree with this. In fact, given opportunity I do vote for righteous judges, and if I had the chance I would vote to impeach many who are disobeying our U.S. Constitution (USC). BUT, (yes it’s a big but). Impeachments of even the worst judge or two isn’t even getting to first base. Obviously there is more to this problem than pinning selfishness and/or bad logic on those who are steering our Government against Christianity.

    John LeLand, a contemporary of Jefferson and Madison, was involved in drafting the Bill of Rights, at least indirectly. When the first amendment was adopted he was pleased to write in his personal memoirs that a “Turk, or a pagan” would be able to serve in our Federal government. He had an idea of why the word “religion” was used rather than “Christian denomination” in the wording of the first amendment. Benjamin Morris in _The Christian Life And Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States_ says “This Constitution … contains no recognition of the Christian religion.” Gary DeMar in volume 1 of _God and Government_ states that some Presbyterians refused to ratify the Constitution because it did not “acknowledge the sovereignty of God”. Psalm 2 doesn’t give a neutral (secular) position for government. Satan will use any tool (religion/philosophy) he can to bring down Christ and his (universal) church. It’s true that the humanists and statists will never claim they are making law in accord with *their* religious beliefs but, as PH writes, we know they are.

    So, let’s remove all doubt and talk about an amendment to replace Article VI paragraph 3’s “no religious oath” with the single oath recognizing the authority of the Christian Triune God and the Holy Scriptures?

    Comment by hrocks50 | December 5, 2014 | Reply

    • One can find someone from our framing era who said just about whatever one is looking for to justify a position he holds today. The People of that time were varied in their “opinions” and “views”; some were wise, more were fools; and some were more knowledgeable than others in the areas of political philosophy and statecraft. So just b/c someone from that era said it does not make it true.

      Today, our Constitution has many enemies – and yes, some hate it b/c there is no religious oath. But I think if you look into this dispassionately, you will see that the issue of the time of our Framing was NOT whether one was a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim – but whether one was “congregational”, “episcopalian”, “Baptist”, “Quaker” or “Roman Catholic”. While the States retained the power to establish whatever religion they wanted – the national government was NOT to establish one for the Country at Large and was not to interfere in the States’ establishments of the religion of their choice. The Framers rightly didn’t want States saying that candidates for federal office from their State HAD to be a Baptist, or Congregationalist, or whatever, and that Catholics and Quakers were disqualified from holding public federal office.
      But of course, the States were free to impose such requirements on candidates for STATE or local offices.

      Many of the worst bullies in world history have been religious bullies: God preserve us from the Spanish Inquisition or a Protestant tyranny. And the modern day “Christian” male supremacists are among the worst bullies ever.

      To bicker and chafe and seethe b/c the Constitution does not require that one take an oath that he is a Christian is to ignore the substance of our Constitution. Anyone familiar with God’s model of civil government in the Bible recognizes that our Constitution is patterned after God’s model. This paper just touches on it:

      And to say that our Constitution does not recognize Christianity is ignorant. Look at Article VII, clause 2: “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…” “our Lord” – Gee! Who might that be? Thor? Allah? No, our Constitution specifically recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

      Our Constitution departed from God’s Model on permitting permanent hereditary black slavery and the clause which permitted the fugitive slave laws (Article IV, Sec. 2, clause 3); but other than that, the parallel is unmistakeable.

      Our Declaration of Independence said the purpose of government is to secure the rights the Creator God gave us. In the latest paper posted on my Home page,I show how the powers delegated to the federal government enable it to secure our God given rights to life, liberty & property in those specific ways appropriate to the national government of a federation.
      See also this chart:

      And finally, oaths today are meaningless. Marriage oaths, oaths of office, just words people chant, they mean nothing… The sickness of today is that People want to do what they want to do and oaths and promises don’t stop them from doing what they want to do.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 6, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large! Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have alsoseized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools! […]

    Pingback by PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: SELLING YOU , YOUR KIDS OUT TO BIG GOVERNMENT | Rowan TEA Party Patriots | July 18, 2013 | Reply

  4. […] The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large! Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools! […]

    Pingback by Parental Rights Amendment: Congressmen Are Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government | Give Me Liberty | July 12, 2013 | Reply

  5. […] The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large!  Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools! […]

    Pingback by Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 11, 2013 | Reply

  6. […] The Lie of “Separation of Church and State” & the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpations of Pow… ~Publius Huldah […]

    Pingback by NC Stands for Religious Liberty – Press Lies, Belittles – Nothing New | SubConch | April 17, 2013 | Reply

  7. […] in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools. Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court, the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by NULLIFICATION DENIERS: WHAT JAMES MADISON REALLY SAID PART 1 & 2 | Jericho777's Blog | February 6, 2013 | Reply

  8. […] powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding Obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment […]

    Pingback by How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost « Gds44's Blog | February 4, 2013 | Reply

  9. […] the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools.  Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said | Unified Patriots | February 1, 2013 | Reply

  10. […] in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools.  Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah: "James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers" | USA NEWS FIRST | January 31, 2013 | Reply

  11. […] in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools.  Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 31, 2013 | Reply

  12. […] the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools.  Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said | Grumpy Opinions | January 31, 2013 | Reply

  13. […] in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools. Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court, the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said | Illinois Conservative Beacon | January 28, 2013 | Reply

  14. […] the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools.  Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said « Veteran Patriot | January 28, 2013 | Reply

  15. […] in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools. Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court, the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore […]

    Pingback by Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said « Set You Free News | January 27, 2013 | Reply

  16. […] powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers  in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th […]

    Pingback by Lawyer Publius Huldah: Nullify Obamacare | USA NEWS FIRST | January 22, 2013 | Reply

  17. […] seem to miss is that this amendment is for OUR protection against a tyrannical government.  If you learned your history, you’d KNOW why this amendment is important, as are every other in the Bill of Rights.  […]

    Pingback by …Free Exercise Thereof… , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings | January 9, 2013 | Reply

  18. […] powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers  in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! | The Constitution Sentinel | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  19. […] powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers  in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It , what an excellent idea « GOD, GUTS,OLD GLORYand AMMO | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  20. […] powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers  in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th […]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  21. […] enumerated powers and disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the […]

    Pingback by MODEL NULLIFICATION RESOLUTIONS FOR STATE LEGISLATURES « A Nation Beguiled | March 14, 2012 | Reply

  22. I have spent the last two weeks reading this and the rest of your writings and I am thrilled that someone is finally saying the right things about our so called government and that they are and have been breaking the constitution and what we can do about it. The socialist in our government think that just because they are the government that they can do as they please and we don’t have recourse to stop any of this. I just wish there was a court that we could take the Supreme Court to and stop this nonsense about separation of church and state and give it a rest. I have known for a long time that this government and Supreme court are not following the constitution, but I had no idea how to stop them except through elections. The biggest problem I see is getting the people of this country to open their eyes and to not only READ the constitution, but it live by it and make our government live and work by it. Every election we are presented with people running for office that are NOT the people we need, but in most cases the only ones running.

    I want to thank you for all your hard work and effort that you have put into this and other pages so that maybe we can get this country going in the right direction again. We are in desperate need of some people in congress that will run the government according to the constitution and not some socialist agenda.

    Would it be OK to use some of your posts as quotes on other sites I post on so maybe we can get this spread around a little. I’ll post links back to this site for proper credit.

    Comment by Ed Broberg | January 19, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you, Ed.
      FYI: Your comment went into my spam. Normally, I delete the spam w/o reading it, b/c there are so many of them. But this time, I looked at them before deleting. It may be the .com in your address which made my spam filter think you were a spammer.

      Re the supreme Court: The Lie we were told in law school is that the supreme Court is THE Final Authority on everything. Almost everyone believes it. One of the things I am trying to teach Our People is that such is a lie, and we must stop thinking we have to run to a federal court and let them decide every issue. I say this over & over in my papers here and throughout my posts on the internet; yet Our People keep talking about how we need to “file a lawsuit”!

      Our Framers were not people who ran to a federal judge for “permission” to have constitutional government. We do not need permission from the likes of those bullies on the supreme Court to freely exercise our religion, etc. A free people do it regardless of what those bullies say. Will they keep ME from talking about God in public? No Way.

      We need to elect people to Congress who will impeach federal judges who usurp powers (see Federalist Paper No. 81, 8th para). We need to understand nullification. We need to learn discernment! We are so easily swayed and manipulated. It is an uphill battle trying to teach our People. Very few of them actually want to learn – most of them just want to spout off about their own [ignorant] opinions. Look at all the posts one sees everywhere on the internet. Only a handful speak from Knowledge.

      God help us.

      Of course! Feel free to quote from my papers and link to this site anywhere you can. Such posts do bring in new readers – the ones who want to learn. It may be that if those people learn, we may reach the critical mass after all so that we can return to our Foundational Principles.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 19, 2012 | Reply

  23. Now, what can we do to “fix” it?

    Evidently no one in really interested in fixing it. I explained above Americans have on two “constitutional” powers of force against government – one power is the ballot box, Americans elect ever Congressman (Lawmaker) every two years; Article I Section 2.

    Only a citizen Juror has any power in a court and that power is limited to denying the court to punish the accused.

    No one visited my web site to download the FPs, and Joanne Campbell’s elucidated Constitution but I have them on my and will email them to any that wants them.

    Comment by Allan Hampton | January 30, 2011 | Reply

    • States have both the Right and the Duty to nullify unconstitutional federal “laws”
      See my last paper on Nullification! It is very important that our People learn about & understand nullification!

      Also, re Congressmen being “lawmakers”: Do not forget, their lawmaking power is restricted to those 20 or so powers enumerated in the Constitution (primarily at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 31, 2011 | Reply

      • What force or power do the States or Jurors have to enforce their nullification of federal laws or acts?

        Comment by Allan Hampton | January 31, 2011 | Reply

        • All jurors need do in a criminal trial is find the defendant “Not Guilty” – jury nullification. Why don’t you join?

          And see my papers on nullification!

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 31, 2011 | Reply

          • I will join your study group.

            I understand “not guilty” but have no info it actually carries a “force” against the Court. What is constitutionally supposed to be is no longer the in affect. But I do advocate Jurors vote no indictment and not guilty, and there is nothing forcing them not to do that. Jurors can do that with impunity, if they keep their mouth closed, they don’t have to answer to any for their decision.

            Comment by Allan Hampton | January 31, 2011

          • Allan, after the Jury gives its verdict of “Not Guilty”, the trial is over! The defendant is acquitted.

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 31, 2011

  24. After reading the Constitution several times, and the Federalist Papers, I said for months that the term “Separation of Church and State” did not, in any way, mean that prayer in school was prohibited. I knew Hugo Black had written his opinion, but I knew nothing of his affiliation with the KKK. Now I am beginning to see how all of this could happen, and now I am even more leery of the appointments Obama has made to the Supreme Court.

    Comment by David R. Nemirow | January 30, 2011 | Reply

    • Well, obviously, you can think! And you can learn.
      Oh, yes, Sotomayor and Kagan give me cold chills. Did you see Sen. Tom Coburn’s questioning of Kagan at her confirmation hearing about her view of the source of our Rights? Yet RINOS voted to confirm her. I expect the significance of what she said went right over their empty heads. I have a link to Coburn’s questions and her answers in my recent paper on What is the source of our Rights: God, The Constitution, Government, etc.
      Always love to see a Thinker!

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 30, 2011 | Reply

  25. […] he was right!  The supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square:  no prayers at football games, no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, & Judge Roy […]

    Pingback by Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress? | November 5, 2010 | Reply

  26. […] The federal courts also have no constitutional authority to hear cases involving prayer in public places throughout the States. The 1st Amendment restricts only the powers of CONGRESS.  We The People may do whatever We like respecting prayer in public places, and the federal courts have no authority whatsoever to interfere.  How the supreme Court usurped power to ban religious speech in Our Country is explained in The TRUTH about “Separation of Church and State”. Does the Supreme Court have constitutional aut… […]

    Pingback by | July 17, 2010 | Reply

  27. Thank you for putting such a well detailed description together and providing the thorough details in the history of the “Separation of Church and State” issue.

    Comment by Trent | May 26, 2010 | Reply

  28. I can not thank you enough for sharing your vast knowledge with me. I have often wondered how the Supreme Court decisions concerning religion and freedom of speech could be so far removed from the first amendment. You have presented the answer in a clear manner that is very easy to understand.


    Comment by wlitchford | May 20, 2010 | Reply

    • Thank you, dear wlitchford! Please do what you can to get the paper distributed to as many as possible. It breaks my heart to see Christianity being suppressed and replaced by secularism. And Our People have NO IDEA how the Supreme Court lied and perverted the First Amendment. Most of the lawyers don’t know either! We were all taught in law school that the Constitution means WHATEVER the Supreme Court says it means. And judges on the Supreme Court DON’T GO BY THE CONSTITUTION! They go by previous Supreme Court opinions. That is outrageous! Yet everyone accepts it. Except for a few in whose minds the light is one. See what you can do to turn the light on in the minds of others.
      And stay in touch. Publius

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | May 21, 2010 | Reply

  29. Oh, how I wish I had your treatise 40 years ago! What an absolutely powerful and crystal clear expositon of the meaning of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. It has been so distorted and misapplied to turn it upside down and inside out – the effect being to reverse the original intent of the constitution. God help us to do whatever it takes to reverse this wholesale lie and self-imposed (by six Supreme court justices) infringement on our God-given freedom to “shout His praises from the roof tops!” Thank you PH, for your excellent, scholarly, and logical(!) paper. Wow! it’s been a long time since I thought about my logic classesl. Time to dust off the books on that subject.

    Comment by Trumpet Blast | January 28, 2010 | Reply

  30. This is the best essay I have ever seen on the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment and Jefferson’s “wall of separation” comment. Thank for your great work.

    Comment by Steve W. | January 6, 2010 | Reply

    • Thank you, Steve! Stay in touch. PH

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | January 6, 2010 | Reply

  31. Another great article PH. I have researched this topic for years myself and came to the same conclusion. The main difference in my research is yours of course is from the “law” perspective. But since I don’t have a law degree and don’t understand it like you do, I went from the stand point of things the founders did or deeds or actions taken you might call them.

    Here’s a couple of things for example:

    One of the first acts of the Second Continental Congress on September 11, 1777 was to order the printing of 20,000 Bibles paid for by the U.S. Congress with public money, and inside the cover of those Bibles it says that they were for use in our schools. Then Congress in 1782 reordered more Bibles.

    The Sunday following Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut in 1801 which contained the phrase “thin wall of separation between the church and the state”, Mr. Jefferson attended a church service conducted by John Leland, a prominent Baptist minister, in the halls of the House of Representatives. Throughout his presidency, he attended similar services, which were often held in the north wing of the Capitol.

    From 1807 to 1857 church services were held in a variety of government buildings where Congress, the Supreme Court, the War Office, and the Treasury were headquartered. On occasion a military band would play at government expense. Also at times an over flow crowd of 2,000 would attend services. Obviously neither Jefferson nor any other officials in the early Republic understood separation between church and state to mean that the federal government was precluded from permitting active support of opportunities for such worship. Indeed, they plainly recognized that the duty of civil government was to encourage public professions of faith.

    Thomas Jefferson also signed a bill authorizing both the salary of a missionary to the Kaskaskia Indian tribe, as well as the construction of a church for the Indians, to be paid for out of the national treasury. This too would be declared unconstitutional today.

    I also ran across this quote from Justice William Rhenquist:

    The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion, nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build a “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson vs. Board of Education… Justice William Rhenquist, dissenting opinion Wallace vs. Jaffree, 1985

    Comment by Mike | December 22, 2009 | Reply

  32. […] Hamilton was a prophet as well as a genius in political philosophy, for it has been demonstrated elsewhere how judges on the U.S. Supreme Court exploited the First Amendment’s promise of “free […]

    Pingback by IS THERE A "RIGHT" TO MEDICAL CARE? | October 14, 2009 | Reply


    Yes, it is astonishing when one realizes that the U.S. Supreme Court is lawless, and that they lied about the “establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment. I have been a lawyer for over 35 years, & am still amazed at how they got away with it for all this time. And nobody objected!

    Spread the word, my dear. And stay in touch. PH

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 6, 2009 | Reply

  34. Wow! I’ve tried and tried to understand how we got to the point where our children could not even mention “God” or “Jesus” in the public school….Thank you so much for explaining it all! I’ve read and re-read The Constitution and Bill of Rights many times and carry the pocket-size copy with me everywhere (perfect reading while sitting in any waiting room) and have never been able to find anything that could be interpreted to mean our children can’t pray in school, or anyone, anywhere else for that matter! It’s because it’s not there! While it still makes me angry that they’ve gotten away with these illegal actions at least now I know how it came about. Now, what can we do to “fix” it?
    Thanks for all your efforts…they are not in vain. Many of my friends would love to read your writings…I’ll be sharing this with them. Keep writing and I’ll keep reading. Thanks again – Kathy

    Comment by Kathy P | September 6, 2009 | Reply

  35. Love It!
    I’m just now getting ‘educated’ in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc. I remember so little from my early education. I believe it is only when one considers the subject ‘important’ that any real digestion of the material can occur. I don’t want to talk ‘through my hat’ in an argument, but be armed with the facts. One has to pay particular attention to the verbage in the original writings as it is not what we’re accustomed to reading. That’s probably why one commenter lamented having to re-read so much. I do too! I’m thinking of buying stock in a highlighter manufacturing company as I go through so many!
    There are also no margins left because of my written comments. Don’t ya just love it?! I’ve only become interested in politics when we returned from Canada after 15 years to find the US in tatters and steamrolling towards socialism. I’m political now! The adventure begins….

    Comment by suzanne fort | September 4, 2009 | Reply

    • Dear Suzanne,
      Thank you so much! My copy of The Federalist Papers has loose pages, the covers fell off long ago, the now detached index pages are so tattered I had to put Scots tape around all 4 edges; & I have so many underlinings that some passages are almost illegible. However, my copy has been with me for so long that I have become attached to it. BUT, the print is getting awfully small…..!

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 6, 2009 | Reply

  36. But Roy! These are not my concepts! What I write is Truth. What tantalizes you is the Truth which ensues when Logic is applied to Facts. And I love that I know the author of your post.

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 21, 2009 | Reply

  37. Hi, Gene!
    When you say, “lack standing” are you referring to a court telling a party it “lacks standing” to bring a law suit; or are you referring to the federal govt telling a State it lacks standing to object to an unconstitutional act of congress?

    Yes! recall petitions have been successful! Gov. Gray Davis of California was recalled by angry voters and Arnold Schwartennegger was elected in a special election.

    I’ll see if I can find out whether your State has a recall statute. Recall is an underused remedy.

    Just saying “No” is another underused remedy. If that lawless Congress passes obamacare, what would happen if the doctors and nurses stopped working? They have the power to stop obamacare by refusing to participate – Atlas Shruggs.

    The same with the States: “NO, we’re not going along with it.” Where did the States get the idea they have to obey Congress, the federal courts & the executive branch? They have it backwards! PH

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 20, 2009 | Reply

  38. “Did you get that? Hamilton said that when our ”creature”, i.e., the federal government, usurps power, WE are to judge the conduct by the standard of the Constitution, and WE are to take appropriate action to “redress the injury done to the Constitution”! This includes demands for impeachment, recall petitions, defeating faithless representatives in the next election, nullification by states, jury nullification, non-violent civil disobedience, ignoring unconstitutional “laws” because an unconstitutional “law” is a “mere usurpation and deserves to be treated as such” ; and the like.”

    What is our recourse when “they” state we have no standing?
    And I would like more info on a recall petition. Has one ever been done by the citizanry?


    Comment by eugene gorton | August 20, 2009 | Reply

  39. I find myself rereading every sentence…just age I guess, but your concepts tantalize me. I don’t agree with some of the concepts but I love that I know the author…

    Comment by Roy Fouts | August 19, 2009 | Reply

  40. […] on those specific subjects which are listed in the Constitution as proper subjects of legislation.[1] Since “religion” & “speech” are not among the listed powers, Congress may not make any […]

    Pingback by Religious Freedom « The American Heritage Project | June 20, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 972 other followers

%d bloggers like this: