• cause for alarm because ..
  • Justice Scalia dissented again in Mistretta v U
  • S.(1989), ..

Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" ..

Separation of church and state has long been viewed as a ..

Chapter 22.4 Flashcards | Quizlet

The nation subscribes to the original premise of the framers of the Constitution that ..
The Bill of Rights, however, had no effect on how a state treated itschurches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and lawsof the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, todirect church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, allwithin the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted, many did. Whilethe "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the"establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibitedthe federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented thefederal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.

A Constitution For the United States Flashcards | Quizlet


It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendmentfor people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal governmenthad no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to itthan that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of theamendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed inreligion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitutionthat specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion andgovernment. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor fornon-establishment.

 

Start studying A Constitution For the United States


6, 1867):
"There is not a single shade of difference between Schofield, Sickles,Sheridan, Pope and Ord [generals in charge of Reconstruction]:...Theyareall infamous, cowardly, and abandoned villains who, instead of wearingshoulder straps and ruling millions of people should have their headsshaved,their ears cropped, their foreheads branded, and their persons lodgedina penitentiary." President Johnson's message in vetoing the Repeal Act(Johnson'sVeto was subsequently overridden.):
"I cannot give my assent to a measure which proposes to deprive anyperson restrained of his or her liberty in violation of theConstitution...theright of appeal to the highest judicial authority known to ourgovernment....TheSupreme Court combines judicial wisdom and impartiality to a higherdegreethan any authority known to the Constitution; any any act which maybeconstrued into or mistaken for an attempt to prevent or evade itsdecisionon a question which affects the liberty of the citizens and agitatesthecountry cannon fail to be attended with unpropitious consequences."

"The Court stood still to be ravished and did not even hallo while thething was getting done...The whole government is so rotten anddishonest that I can only protest. It is drunk with blood andvomits crime incessantly."
19. What should the Court have done in ? Consider these options: (1) Conclude that it had already determined ithad jurisdiction and ignore the repeal act; (2) Consider the act, butholdit inapplicable because it was enacted after oral argument hadoccurred;(3) Hold that the act violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 in thatthesuspension of habeas corpus was not required by public safety; (4)Holdthe act violated the Fifth Amendment because it deprived McCardle ofdueprocess of law; (5) Hold the act violates basic separation of powersprinciplesand that Congress cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the Court; (6)Upholdthe act and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.


Very early on, in (13 US 43 [1815]), the Court wasasked to rule on a dispute over church lands. The lands had originally been apart of Fairfax County, Virginia, but had ended up within the new District ofColumbia when the District had been delineated by Congress. The members of theEpiscopal church of Alexandria sued when trustees of the church wanted to sellsome of the lands the church had been deeded by the state. One of the argumentsin the case was that under the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the statedid not have the authority to deed land to a church. The Court rejected theargument that land deeded under a state law, passed in 1776, could be repealedby new state laws, passed in 1798 and 1801 because the 1776 law was thought tobe unconstitutional. The new laws removed the deeds to the land. This could notbe allowed, the Court wrote:


Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion - …

OK, How about the other take on this. If 'All' the people involved in the illegal order to monitor whatever is now or was being monitored weren't doing their Constitutional duty (i.e. protect and defend .. against all enemies foreign or domestic) then why do we hear about this grave violation of law from our 4th branch of government. If this isn't political (but rather a point of law) why didn't one of those trusted to carry out the order (and who believed it was illegal) turn the whole chain of command over to the authorities. There is the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the Congress, the Courts, so; why the press. Oh, and Who turned the press on to this, (or was there a cost to revealing super secret information to those without clearance). Or, was it 'just to difficult' to find the correct authority. I've read Franklin, Paine, et. al. and I want to live in a free country, but; is this issue only just binary question. Isn't there a grey scale at least?

all within the bounds of the state's own constitution

If 'we' are so outraged at this behavior, why didn't the large portion of we that works for the government do more about it. Anyone who is blindly following orders in the executive branch (including the military) at this time of high-alert, when accusations fly about tyrany, should consider their 'Oath of Office'. I for one do not believe our President was acting out of malice (even if he did do harm to our Constitution vsv Separation of Powers (TBD sometime later)). Our country has a mutable system of government; its being watched by 'us' constantly; I am not planning to let it fall anytime soon to tyrany; and I don't expect anyone else in this debate is planning to let that happen either. Everyone who believes that any one person is powerful enough to become a dictator in this country hasn't watch any Election Night coverage (apparent plurality). And anyone who believes that everyone in 'the government' is corrupt to the point of allowing a dictatorship doesn't realize how many people the Federal government employs. Or, is everyone just a stooge for one man?

interesting case that did not advance the cause of ..

The Court wrote that it did not wish to rule on the question of theconstitutionality of such deeds. The effect of the newer laws was to divestindividuals or corporations of lands legally acquired. The Court did state,however, that it did not find the 1776 law to be inconsistent with theConstitution nor with the Virginia Bill of Rights.