“Separation of Church and State” – These Words Do Not Mean What You May Think They Mean…


Constitutional revisionists think the phrase separation of church and state is in the First Amendment, however these words do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. And as with ALL parts of the Constitution, it places restrictions on THE GOVERNMENT, and NOT THE PEOPLE!  Together, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause form the basis of the American concept of separation of church and state, which compels the government to give equal treatment to all religions — and to respect the absence of religion, and which grants U.S. citizens the freedom to embrace or reject any faith they choose. NOTHING MORE – NOTHING LESS!

“Separation of church and state” was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This portion of the Constitution speaks against a state-imposed faith.

It tells us that you don’t want a national religion, a state-coerced national religion, a one-size-fits-all, everybody-has-to-join system. The Founders were concerned that with a strong national government there would be a national religion. They wanted to allow the states a free hand to collaborate with religion in their important work of fostering a citizenry.

Our nation was predicated on unalienable rights with governance through family, church and community, each rightfully sovereign within its sphere. Human dignity, legal equality and personal freedom reflect biblical values imparted on Western Civilization, which retains these values in secular form while expunging their Author from public discourse.

Americans are frequently reminded of what the revisionists incorrectly deem our greatest achievement: “Separation of Church and State.” Crosses are ripped down in parks. Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly misinterpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that religion must be removed entirely from public life.

Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today.

In his second inaugural address, March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson stated: “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. …”

Jefferson continued: “Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States as far as it can be in any human authority. … I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines. … Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”

It is obvious that from Thomas Jefferson’s compiled work that terms like, “fence” or “wall” were used within the context of describing the importance of limited government to prevent its interference with religious activities.

Thomas Jefferson intentionally used the phrases “self-evident truths” and “endowed by our Creator” when he wrote The Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers most certainly considered the Declaration as a legal document, beginning with: “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America;” and closing with: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled…”

The Declaration of Independence is listed in the first volume of the U.S. Code under the heading Organic Laws of the United States. U.S. Code is the permanent law of the United States. “Organic” is defined as “of, relating to, or constituting the law by which a government or organization exists.”

The Organic Laws are comprised of four laws:

  1. The Declaration of Independence
  2. The Articles of Confederation
  3. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and,
  4. The Constitution.

When a U.S. President, a member of Congress, or a military official is sworn into office they are required to take an oath to defend the Constitution.

If the Declaration of Independence is really not a governing document, then Organic Law is irrelevant, and the Constitution and our entire system of government is illegal.

Fortunately, that is not the case.

Source: Google

Comment area and share buttons are at the bottom of the page.

Follow: The Roediger Report

{The America First Network} on Facebook!

 

in god we trust

ABC’s Jesus-Ridiculing Show Bringing In The Easter Season Proclaiming 10% Of Americans Are Gay!


ABC’s newest sitcom The Real O’Neals is described as “just your typical all-American, Catholic, divorcing, disgraced, law-breaking, gay family” and continues on to say their family is “a perfect mess.” It is now airing on Tuesday evenings at 8:30/7:30 p.m. CT.

The Real O’Neals mocks Christianity and insults Catholicism. One Million Moms (1MM) recognizes this show ridicules people of faith, and Christians across America are offended by it.

The Parents Television Council, which has also taken issue with the program, recently released research it conducted about the graphic content on the series, which is rated PG.

“PTC research has found that the first three episodes of ABC’s new show, ‘The Real O’Neals’ were saturated with adult content,” noted PTC.

“Children watching were exposed to either sexual dialogue or bleeped profanities on an average of once every 43 seconds — in spite of the fact that the show is rated TV-PG and airs as early as 7:30 p.m. in half the country.”

PTC President Tim Winter said in a statement that “ABC has essentially inserted explicit and adult-themed humor into a PG-rated, primetime program that is about a family, created for families.”

“Even worse, much of the sexual and expletive-laced dialogue is delivered by characters who are children. Simply put, the network is defrauding parents by rating this show as appropriate for young children,” continued Winter.

“I’d argue that most parents would not agree that the kind of content found in ‘The Real O’Neals’ is anywhere near acceptable for family audiences.”

In 2014, CBS premiered a series called “The McCarthys” involving an sports-focused family with a gay son who was an adult. The program was canceled after one season.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue seems optimistic that a similar fate may meet The Real O’Neals, arguing that the series was already failing in the ratings.

“ABC is in a jam and they know it. Even they must admit that last night’s episode of ‘The Real O’Neals’ was just plain stupid. The ratings show it: once again, it trailed the competition on CBS and NBC,” wrote Donohue.

It is almost impossible to describe the depth of depravity found in the sitcom The Real O’Neals. It is impossible to list them all, so here are a few scenes from this TV – PG – D rated show:

  • Jesus appears where only the gay son can see and talk to Him, and He is annoyed by the mom’s strict guidelines for her family.
  • The daughter steals money she is supposedly raising for charity.
  • The daughter “attempts to prove” that there is no God in a science fair project.
  • ABC network refers to this highly dysfunctional family as “the perfect Irish-Catholic family.”
  • A statue of Mary is kept above the O’Neal’s toilet to remind the boys to put the seat down.
  • The first jab at Jesus comes only 52 seconds into the first episode.
  • The mother encourages her 16-year-old gay son to “try sex” with a girl.
  • Vulgar language.
  • The mom makes pancakes shaped like the face of Jesus to guilt trip her anorexic son into eating.
  • One of the show’s producers is anti-Christian bigot Dan Savage, and the show is said to be loosely based on his life.
  • The most recent episode claims that 10% of Americans are gay. Maybe in Hollywood!

Take Action

Simply Orange (Coca-Cola) was the major advertiser who paid corporate dollars to promote its products in association with the program The Real O’Neals.

Use the information we have provided on our website and let Simply Orange (Coca-Cola) know that its advertising dollars are supporting bigotry and animosity toward people of faith and that financial support should be pulled immediately.

Email: Contact Here

1.800.GET.COKE (800.438.2653)

The Coca-Cola Company P.O. Box 1734 Atlanta, GA 30301, USA

Source: Charisma News, et al.

Experts Agree Trump Muslim Ban Constitutional and Warranted…


Constitution-1

While the liberal media has condemned Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants as “disqualifying” and “toxic,” former President Barack Obama may have only himself to blame as President Trump succeeds in putting his plan, or some version of it, into action.

In his efforts to work around Congress, Obama has made the aggressive use of executive power, particularly on immigration, an increasingly effective and politically accepted presidential tool. While legal scholars are divided on whether Obama has accelerated or merely continued a drift of power toward the executive branch, there’s little debate that he’s paved a path for his successor.

Depending on who that is, many Obama backers could rue the day they cheered his “pen-and-phone” campaign to get past Republican opposition in Congress. The unilateral steps he took to raise environmental standards, tighten gun control measures and ease the threat of deportation for millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, serves as precedent for moves they won’t cheer.

“You know the great thing about executive orders, I don’t have to go back to Congress,” Trump said recently at rally in Manassas, Va.

“We’re unsigning a lot of executive orders, especially his order that basically lets anybody they want just pour into our country,” Trump said. “That’s going to end.”

And Trump’s plan is backed by much precedent and long standing legal definitions.

Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Any such blanket action based on a person’s religion would be unconstitutional if applied to U.S. citizens, scholars agree.

But courts have given Congress and the president wide discretion when it comes to immigration.

No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said it is naive to think the country would never again resort to such harsh measures, particularly during wartime.

“That’s what was going on – the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens,” Scalia said on a visit to Hawaii in 2014, describing the mood in America following Pearl Harbor that led to the internment camps. “It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification, but it is the reality.”

“I don’t actually think it would be unconstitutional. The president has a huge amount of discretion under the immigration statute,” said Eric Posner, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. The same protections given citizens do not apply to people who are neither American nor in the United States, Posner said.

Posner pointed out that the Supreme Court “has held consistently, for more than a century, that constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants.”

He said while the court hasn’t ruled specifically on religious discrimination, “it has also never given the slightest indication that religion would be exempt from this general rule.”

Courts have upheld the denial of visas to enter the country to Marxists and people born to parents who were not married, among many categories. The Supreme Court has never struck down an immigration classification on the basis of race or any other reason, said Temple University immigration expert Peter Spiro.

We asked Stephen H. Legomsky, of Washington University School of Law, who was chief counsel at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency under President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013. Most recently the professor served briefly as senior counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security on immigration issues.

He referred to the plenary power doctrine that “states that the courts should show exceptional deference to Congress when it legislates in the field of immigration,” Mr. Legomsky told Law Blog. It was first laid down by the Supreme Court in the late 1880s when justices upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act, a federal law that suspended immigration of Chinese laborers.

Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA—one of the top First Amendment scholars in America—says about this proposed ban that there are no limits on Congress’s power over immigration, per the Supreme Court’s earlier cases (even though he also called Trump’s proposed policy an “abomination”). Prof. Eric Posner of the University of Chicago is less confident in predicting an outcome, but says the ban would probably be upheld by the courts.

There are legal challenges that have been raised by some lawyers, but all of these fail. Some say it violates the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution, but that says only that people seeking federal office cannot be denied public office because of their religion.

In fact, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell cites this provision of federal law:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

“I would add that, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Supreme Court applied the ‘plenary power doctrine’ to the exclusion of people based on their political beliefs, despite the Free Speech Clause. The cases that Posner is referring to, together with Kleindienst, suggest that the exclusion of people based on their religious beliefs is likewise constitutional.”

He noted that, “at this point, the precedents counsel in favor of the constitutionality of such a rule.”

Posner pointed out there even is a precedent for Trump’s idea.

“In 1891, Congress passed a statute that made inadmissible people who practice polygamy (directed, at the time, at Mormons), and in 1907 extended this ban to people who ‘who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.’ While Congress later repealed the latter provision (the former seems to be still on the books), no court – as far I know – ruled it unconstitutional.”

He said it’s clear, “The plenary power doctrine is universally loathed by scholars and some have argued that it is effectively a dead letter. But any honest answer to a journalist’s question about whether Trump’s plan to ban Muslim immigration is unconstitutional should start with the plenary powers doctrine, and observe that it would be an uphill battle to persuade the Supreme Court to abandon a century of precedent.”

He said it’s unfortunate that scholars – “who certainly know better” – are telling journalists who don’t like Trump’s ideas what they want to hear.

“Not everything that is stupid or offensive is unconstitutional,” he said.

The high court has reaffirmed the doctrine in a 1972 ruling denying entry to a self-described “revolutionary Marxist” from Belgium who sought a temporary visa.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog that Mr. Trump’s plan “may be a very bad idea, but under the plenary power doctrine it may very well be constitutional.”

It doesn’t appear that Mr. Trump would have to get congressional approval before advancing the Muslim ban, said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. Congress has already given the president broad powers to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens as immigrants” if their entry would “be detrimental” to the nation’s interests.

To join the Trump movement go to our Facebook Group:

Deplorable Us For Trump!

Image may contain: 1 person