Saturday, February 27, 2010

Glenn Beck & Judge Napolitano: States have power establish religion?

On Glenn Beck's program Friday, Feb. 26, 2010 Judge Napolitano was asked by Glenn Beck to confirm that a state - Massachusetts was identified - had established a "religion."

Transcript of portion of You Tube video for Friday February 26, 2010 Glenn Beck Program exchange between Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano

Net the Truth Online

Video Part 5 at 1:24 Glenn Beck ... John Hancock, the signature guy up in Massachusetts... if you read that Constitution, did they not have a state religion in Mass. How did they have a state religion in Massachusetts?

Judge Napolitano they did. They could because there was no federal objection to a state religion the constitution banned a national religion

Link to 7 part video (blackkettle.wordpress) for the 'glenn Beck' program for Friday February 26, 2010

We will return to this astonishing implication and pronouncement by Beck and Napolitano.

Beck's follow-up implied states rights today mean California, you want to be Progressive, go ahead and be Progressive.

The implications of Beck highlighing California are astonishing as anyone who follows that state's doings knows full well the state of California has enabled the citizens to make law via its initiative and referendum process.

So by Beck referencing California and indicating if California wants to be Progressive, and act Progressive, California could go ahead and implement laws which are "Progressive."

Neither clarified as found in documentation that after 1776 and the Declaration of Independence, states adopted individual Constitutions. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts adopted a 'support of religion tax.'

The Beck and Napolitano exchange with its implications in the wording left the impression states today would have the power to establish a religion, and a host of other powers via - again implied - the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - and certainly implied with Beck's follow-up comments about California and an independence to be Progressive if California so chose.

We puzzled over the particular phrasing both Beck and Napolitano used during theri exchange as we searched for information about Massachusetts.

But what if those "Progressive" California laws interfered with the guaranteed unalienable rights afforded to us and protected via the United States Constitution?

While Beck phrases his remarks referencing "that Constitution" which could mean the Massachusetts Constitution, in his response to Beck, Napolitano makes reference to "the Constitution."

Napolitano didn't say the state of Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, rather the reference appeared to be to the national federal Constitution because he says the Constitution banned establishment of a 'national religion.'

The U.S. Constitution was adopted as Judge Napolitano is aware in 1789...

Massachusetts ratified its Constitution for Massachusetts 1780.

Further, Napolitano says "the Constitution" banned a national religion. Napolitano didn't say the Articles of Confederation he said the Constitution.

Again, the implication during the exchange appeared to be the Constitution of the United States banned establishment of a national religion.

But the U.S. Constitution was not in play until its ratification in 1789.

Although technically, the Articles of Confederation can be considered a Constitution for the confederation of states after the Declaration of Independence, the Articles are not referenced as such during those historical times and certainly not referenced as such after the adoption in Convention and ratification of the U.S. Constitution 1787-1789.

This morning, March 2, 2010, Judge Napolitano appeared on the Fox 'n Friends to talk about the second Amendment gun rights case before the Supreme Court which will determine states powers and individual rights in regard to the United States Constitution Second Amendment.

Supreme Court Weighs Chicago's Strict Gun Ban
Justices Hear Second Amendment Case: Right to Have Gun at Home?
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2010

...For nearly 30 years, Chicago has banned possession of handguns and automatic weapons inside city limits, one of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

McDonald's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court comes a year and a half after the Court stunned gun-control advocates in another case, declaring for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual's right to own a gun in his or her home.

But that ruling -- District of Columbia v. Heller -- struck down only the Washington, D.C., gun ban.

McDonald is asking the justices to have the Heller ruling applied in cities and states across the country.

"It makes me feel like the city cares more for the thugs than they do me, and I'm the one paying taxes," McDonald said of being barred from owning a gun in his own house.

The National Rifle Association agrees. "The Heller case had only to do with federal enclaves," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said. "This has to do with whether the freedom applies to every American in every city and town all over our country."

In 1982, Chicago imposed the strict gun ordinance to help combat rampant gang and firearm violence that plagued the city.

In court papers, lawyers for the city of Chicago pointed out that 402 of the 412 firearm homicides occurred with the use of handguns in 2008.

"Handguns are used to kill in the United States more than all other weapons, firearms and otherwise, combined," Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara S. Georges wrote.

She argued that the Court should leave it up to the states and cities to regulate handguns.

"The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or the other," Georges wrote.

At issue of course is whether the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to the 'states' or was as a reporter indicated on MSNBC applied only to the federal government, including the Second Amendment.

Earlier on Fox 'n Friends Judge Napolitano left no doubt and indicated the U.S. Constitution protects the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment for the individual to bear arms.

Napolitano rattled off the First Amendment protections as well clearly identifying these for the guaranteed protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution.

He made no mention of states rights to do what they basically desire to do with regard to establishing a religion, banning guns, Progressive-styled laws, etc.

We can't help but wonder what powers does Judge Napolitano believe the states have and/or should be enabled to have via the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well.

In other words, if an expressed right of an individual is not named in the United States Constitution as he appears to believe Second Amendment rights are and do apply to the individual, is there no guarantee of an unnamed or unenumerated right?

How far can a state go with its Tenth Amendment Powers before such powers revert to the people?

Finally, what consideration is given to the Fourteenth Amendment?

We cant help but continue to wonder about Judge Napolitano and his support for a Second Constitutional Convention call by the required amount of states some 34 would have to make the call invoking an Article V Convention.

for all we know, Napolitano and others as conservative and religious minded may want a return to prayer in the public schools. It just isn't good enough that individuals can get together currently and form their own home-schooling or private schools which can include just such prayer. There's still a push to get prayer in the public schools as well. And Intelligent Design is another subject some want in public schools and universities. Again, it's not enough that private schools and universities are not prevented from teaching the existence such in private classes.

What do Beck and Napolitano really want amid all the super-talk of limited government?

Limited government only for the federal, national government?

Limited government for the states too?

How about local government?

The Supreme Court case should hopefully at least come to some resolution about the Bill of Rights by way of the Chicago hearing and ruling.

If the Second Amendment applies to the states, and as Judge Napolitano at least appeared to allow the First Amendment does as well, then there should be no further controversy about prayer in public schools, gun ownership on the part of individuals, abrogation of freedom of speech rights, etc.

Hopefully, the Court might make some comment about unenumerated individual rights as those are possessed by and unalienable from the individual.

Including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all the latter implies. Of course, without the individual infringing on others' rights in the exercise of one's own rights.

Net the Truth Online

Library of Congress

Note date of 1780 and adoption by Massachusetts of the 'general religious tax'... pre-dates adoption of United States Constitution by delegates in Convention and ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the states...

Library of Congress

The Church State Debate: Massachusetts

...After independence the American states were obliged to write constitutions establishing how each would be governed. In no place was the process more difficult than in Massachusetts. For three years, from 1778 to 1780, the political energies of the state were absorbed in drafting a charter of government that the voters would accept. A constitution prepared in 1778 was decisively defeated in a public referendum. A new convention convened in 1779 to make another attempt at writing an acceptable draft.

One of the most contentious issues was whether the state would support religion financially.

Advocating such a policy--on the grounds that religion was necessary for public happiness, prosperity, and order--were the ministers and most members of the Congregational Church, which had been established, and hence had received public financial support, during the colonial period. The Baptists, who had grown strong since the Great Awakening, tenaciously adhered to their ancient conviction that churches should receive no support from the state. They believed that the Divine Truth, having been freely received, should be freely given by Gospel ministers.

The Constitutional Convention chose to act as nursing fathers of the church and included in the draft constitution submitted to the voters the famous Article Three, which authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice. Despite substantial doubt that Article Three had been approved by the required two thirds of the voters, in 1780 Massachusetts authorities declared it and the rest of the state constitution to have been duly adopted.

Thomas Jefferson

52. Freedom of Religion

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Thomas Jefferson

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling 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. 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." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"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 exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332

No comments: