Tea Party: 3rd Party or Republican wolves in Tea Party clothing?

Black Swan

Does it appear that the Tea Party is a Republican conservative splinter group that is now attempting to gain control, and seize leadership from the GOP (taking advantage of the GOP leadership vacuum that now exists since their sweeping 2008 defeat)? This quote following the Republican-turned-Democrat Specter defeat in Pennsylvania is rather telling?

"We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky's Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning's seat.*

Note that Rand Paul is labeled a "tea party candidate" in the Kentucky "Republican primary" (Tea Party + Republican, not Tea Party by itself, suggesting that the Tea Party needs the GOP to get elected; ergo a Republican party splinter group, not a 3rd party)?

Consistent with this observation, will we see more Republican politicians associating themselves with the Tea Party than Democrat politicians during the November elections?

Is this a marketing device being used by the Republican party, calling themselves Tea Party candidates, in an attempt to draw swing vote Independents and infighting (among themselves) Democrat voters with a pseudo-third party image; i.e., conservative Republican wolves in Tea Party clothing?

Or yet another attempt to create a third party starting with splintering off a segment of the conservative Republican party, hoping to add Independents and infighting Democrats to become a viable alternative in future elections (e.g., Texas Republican H. Ross Perot's third party attempt, etc.)?

*Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_no_coattails

Amerika

This is just my view, and others have their own viewpoint of what the Tea Party is. I speak for myself, not for others, even within the TPN itself. Formalized Tea Party’s are non-partisan organizations made up of activists and concerned citizens, who primarily get behind any candidate that is of like mind and espouse limited government, free speech, the 2nd amendment, our military, secure borders and our country. (I know, a lot of simplistic taglines ).

Regarding the candidates they support: It does not matter one iota if the candidate is a member of the democratic party, republican party, constitution party, green party, libertarian party, or any of the minor or micro parties. But of the majors listed, they usually align with the republican, constitution and Libertarian parties. We recognize the hurdles that establishing a formal 3rd party would bring, and realize it best to work the messages within current established parties. There always are exceptions though.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Regarding the candidates they support: It does not matter one iota if the candidate is a member of the democratic party, republican party, constitution party, green party, libertarian party, or any of the minor or micro parties. But of the majors listed, they usually align with the republican, constitution and Libertarian parties.

Have they ever openly and actively supported a Democrat for office running against a Republican? Specific names of Democrat candidates?

jank

Amerika wrote: »

This is just my view, and others have their own viewpoint of what the Tea Party is. I speak for myself, not for others, even within the TPN itself. Formalized Tea Party’s are non-partisan organizations made up of activists and concerned citizens, who primarily get behind any candidate that is of like mind and espouse limited government, free speech, the 2nd amendment, our military, secure borders and our country. (I know, a lot of simplistic taglines ).
.

Sorry but doesn’t the Ron Paul want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now? I remember the GOP primary debates where he was ambushed by other candidates, notably Rudy Giuliani and Fox News on his views that America is basically to blame for 9/11 (Blowback) and that the US should adopt a noninterventionist role in the world. :eek::eek: Not very GOP like is it now!

Strange but I also remember many on the left wanting the same thing. Also anyone remember those moveon.org ads about the deficit (in the bush years) which was then attacked by the right because they were produced by...moveon.org!? Yet same commentators are now "Tea party activists"!

Therein lies the crux of this movement.

Also still waiting for their first protest on Wall St. If they were "truly" independent why not go after the self titled "Masters of the Universe". Like they live in New York (Eastern Liberal City), probably went to Stamford or some other Ivy league school (Liberal Universities), Dont give a $hit mostly about social issue (They hate god!) etc. Come on why not protest against these evil liberals

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Have they ever openly and actively supported a Democrat for office running against a Republican? Specific names of Democrat candidates?

Names? Names?

(Suddenly a scene from the 1935 film Lives of a Bengal Lancer flashes into my head of Douglass Dumbrille saying with an evil tone in his voice "We have ways of making you talk.")

Okay stop, stop! I can’t take anymore... rep Walt Minnick of Idaho

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/21/tea-party-express-endorses-democrat-in-idaho/

BluePlanet

How do you rationalise the belief in "limited government" yet maintain such a ridiculously out of proportion Defense Spending?

By "limited government" do you mean: limited in some ways that you prefer, but totally bloated in others?

Amerika

Actually according to the US Constitution, one of the few proper roles of our government includes defensive activities, which involves "maintaining national military, establishing local police forces for the protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals."

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Actually according to the US Constitution, one of the few proper roles of our government includes defensive activities, which involves "maintaining national military, establishing local police forces for the protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals."

Which doesn't answer my question about the size of Defense Spending.

But is also raises another issue, that being local police forces are not currently federal employees, should they be?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Which doesn't answer my question about the size of Defense Spending.

I think it did.

But is also raises another issue, that being local police forces are not currently federal employees, should they be?

States rights still exist (well as for now anyway). Local and state governments are still part of our government. We have local laws, state laws and federal laws. It makes sense that local police fall under local government, state police fall under state government, and federal law enforcement officers fall under Dick Cheney;).

BluePlanet

The problem with your post is that the Constitution doesn't limit the Federal Government to Defense.

jank

The Tea Parties and Howard Dean have lots in common apparently!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/19/howard_dean_bashes_tea_partiers_compares_them_to_progressives.html

Where were you in 2003 Amerika?

BluePlanet

The Preamble of the US Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, according to the Constitution there should be general Welfare systems operating.
I suppose Medicare could be part of that, or even National Health Care.


I love this bit from Wikipedia's article:

To form a more perfect Union

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution

Overheal

Reminds me of this golden nugget in the GOP Primaries:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-16-2007/right-wing-off

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Preamble of the US Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, according to the Constitution there should be general Welfare systems operating.
I suppose Medicare could be part of that, or even National Health Care.


I love this bit from Wikipedia's article:

To form a more perfect Union

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution

Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!

For simplisity (and laziness) I just grabed what Libertarian Kevin Craig had to say about The "General Welfare" Clause

These clauses have been recruited to defend government spending on projects the Signers of the Constitution would never have dreamed of funding with taxpayers' money. Let's look at the clauses, then look at them in context.

The Preamble to the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch, and begins with these words:
Section 8.
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8 is important. It lists all of Congress' powers. These enumerated powers are the only powers "We the People" delegated to the new government.

fontanalis

The big question is where the f*** were they during Bush's terms? There may be some genuine Libertarians but the vast majority of them are Republicans who are pissed off the person they voted for lost, oh and they want gubberment hands of their medicare.
The primaries will be interesting as will the role of Sarah Palin.

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Where were you in 2003 Amerika?

America

BluePlanet

Overheal wrote: »

Reminds me of this golden nugget in the GOP Primaries:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-16-2007/right-wing-off

Video not available in this country.

Amerika

fontanalis wrote: »

The big question is where the f*** were they during Bush's terms? There may be some genuine Libertarians but the vast majority of them are Republicans who are pissed off the person they voted for lost, oh and they want gubberment hands of their medicare.

Maybe voting out Republicans and turning control of Congress (both the Senate and the House) over to Democrats. Wow, what a mistake that turned out to be. :eek:

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!

Heh.

Ha Ha.

Hahaha.

Ahhahaahahah!

HAAAAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!!


http://www.broadband.gov/


bet you didnt see that coming.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

Ahhh the “general welfare” argument. Wouldn’t free wifi for all also promote the general welfare. DEMAND FREE HEALTHCARE AND FREE WIFI FOR ALL!!!

For simplisity (and laziness) I just grabed what Libertarian Kevin Craig had to say about The "General Welfare" Clause

These clauses have been recruited to defend government spending on projects the Signers of the Constitution would never have dreamed of funding with taxpayers' money. Let's look at the clauses, then look at them in context.

The Preamble to the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I of the Constitution creates the legislative branch, and begins with these words:
Section 8.
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8 is important. It lists all of Congress' powers. These enumerated powers are the only powers "We the People" delegated to the new government.

Why, oh why does the "intent" of the Founding Fathers keep getting brought up.
THeir intent in Article I, Section 2 had it that for the purposes of determining representation, census' would exclude Indians and count each unfree person as 3/5ths of a person.

Overheal

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why, oh why does the "intent" of the Founding Fathers keep getting brought up.
THeir intent in Article I, Section 2 had it that for the purposes of determining representation, census' would exclude Indians and count each unfree person as 3/5ths of a person.

Which was later superseded by all that Freedom stuff. And the emancipation of women. Hence the Amendments to the Constitution.

Lockstep

Overheal wrote: »

Which was later superseded by all that Freedom stuff. And the emancipation of women. Hence the Amendments to the Constitution.

Yup, in this case, the 14th Amendment.

But that wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers.

jman0war

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yup, in this case, the 14th Amendment.

But that wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Yeah, lets roll the clock back 200 years, bring on slavery!
(And um, better start learning German since loads of the ol boys spoke it back then)

fontanalis

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe voting out Republicans and turning control of Congress (both the Senate and the House) over to Democrats. Wow, what a mistake that turned out to be. :eek:

Sure, the tea party trusted the democrats.
I'm sorry but the tea party is a freak show, I'd rather live in a country under the control of the monkeys tea party. I would truly love to see a real libertarian in power and the very first people to be protesting would be these mutant fans of Glen Beck (again I recognise there are hardcore libertarians who have been consistent but they aren't the people who are at the tea party rallies).
Don't get me wrong what the US needs is fiscal responsibility but ther're 30 years late on the protesting there.
As for the big government complaint, that must be one of the most meaningless slogans going, do they have a governmentometre they measure size with?

Amerika

Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Heh.
bet you didnt see that coming.

Actually I did know of that push, that’s why I included it. Ridiculous isn’t it? So what’s next, tofu in every pot?

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?

Well, Ireland was occupied by Britian at the time so was subject to their laws.
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 would be the official date it was outlawed.

Why do you ask?
We don't look to peoples writings of 200 years ago in order to plot our future course so we have no intention of re-visiting their outdated ways.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

Calling all righteous ones, when exactly did each of your individual countries abolish slavery?

Well, we were part of Britain at the time so we didn't really have say...in fact we were used as slave labour ourselves alongside blacks in the 17th century.
Britain abolished the slave trade at the beginning of the 19th century (and enforced it) and then abolished the practice entirely 25 years later.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well, Ireland was occupied by Britian at the time so was subject to their laws.
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 would be the official date it was outlawed.

Why do you ask?

That’s only a short few 30 years (although it started here in 1780 when Pennsylvania passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery") before it was abolished here in the US. But it seems only the US comes up when the discussion of slavery arises.

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

That’s only a short few 30 years (although it started here in 1780 when Pennsylvania passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery") before it was abolished here in the US. But it seems only the US comes up when the discussion of slavery arises.

Probably because USA were rather recalcitrant about abolishing it.
According to the wiki article here the US still had almost 5 million black slaves in 1870.


Edit:
Oh wait, sorry i got that wrong, looks like in 1870 there were no slaves.
I suspect it's one of these things where the US has earned her reputation.

Amerika

Good thing you deleted that important part of your post BluePlanet, becasue I was going to reply with "Wasn’t Northern Nigeria a part of His Majesty's Empire in the early 1930’s?"

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Good thing you deleted that important part of your post BluePlanet, becasue I was going to reply with "Wasn’t Northern Nigeria a part of His Majesty's Empire in the early 1930’s?"

I don't know tbh.
But i'll imagine the colonies were self-governing by then.

Doesn't look like HMG embraced slavery quite like the US did tho huh?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't know tbh.
But i'll imagine the colonies were self-governing by then.

Doesn't look like HMG embraced slavery quite like the US did tho huh?

According to the Urban Dictionary: Yabut
A word used primarily by grade-school children, "yabut" denotes the beginning of a rebuttal. It is very often used when speaking to authority figures, such as teachers and parents.

BluePlanet

So what cherry picking of the "intent of the Founding Fathers" and the US Constitution are the Tea Partiers in favour of?

I take it you don't want Slavery, but that wasn't the Founding Fathers intent, they appear to be not too bothered about it.

What else gets dropped/added?
Seperation of Church and State?

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

According to the Urban Dictionary: Yabut
A word used primarily by grade-school children, "yabut" denotes the beginning of a rebuttal. It is very often used when speaking to authority figures, such as teachers and parents.

What, are you using "grade-school children" language now?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

I take it you don't want Slavery, but that wasn't the Founding Fathers intent, they appear to be not too bothered about it.

They were very worried about it. The United States almost did not come about because of the arguments of slavery in the lead up to the Declaration of Independence. They decided to let it for future leaders to sort out. Thats what Ammendments to the Constitution are all about. Fascinating reading if you get a chance.

What else gets dropped/added?

Seperation of Church and State?

LOL there is no such thing. What the Constitution does say is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

LOL there is no such thing. What the Constitution does say is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ah, yes, the utterly predictable RW canard shows up, as it inevitably would.

The concept of 'Case Law' called for you. It didn't leave a message.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

LOL there is no such thing. What the Constitution does say is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Which has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affirming the seperation of Church and State.

Amerika

Earth to johnny-come-latelys, the points of our recent discussion was about the "Founding Fathers" and the "US Constitution." Not the misinterpretation by the court system at a later date.

Amerika

Mjollnir wrote: »

Ah, yes, the utterly predictable RW canard shows up, as it inevitably would.

The concept of 'Case Law' called for you. It didn't leave a message.

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it." George Washington

Yeah, what a crazy right winger ole George Washington was. :rolleyes:

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it." George Washington

Yeah, what a crazy right winger ole George Washington was. :rolleyes:

And.... what exactly to you take that quote to mean?:rolleyes:

That George Washington DIDN'T support the separation of Church and State?

Amerika

Yup. Government was to protect all the churches (religons), not separate them. Here is more of the letter from George Washington to the General Committee of Baptist Churches in May 1789.

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension, that the constitution framed in the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and, if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. For you doubtless remember, that I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.

While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe, that they will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation I rejoice to assure them, that they may rely on my best wishes and endeavours to advance their prosperity.

In the mean time be assured, Gentlemen, that I entertain a proper sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and eternal happiness.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

Earth to johnny-come-latelys, the points of our recent discussion was about the "Founding Fathers" and the "US Constitution." Not the misinterpretation by the court system at a later date.

Given Jefferson's clear desire for Seperation of Church and State (his writings to the Baptists) and the continual, consistent interpretation of the Supreme Court on this matter, I'm baffled as to how you can call it a "misinterpretation".

Have a read of this.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Amerika wrote: »

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it." George Washington

Yeah, what a crazy right winger ole George Washington was. :rolleyes:

What are you trying to say here?

Amerika

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Given Jefferson's clear desire for Seperation of Church and State (his writings to the Baptists) and the continual, consistent interpretation of the Supreme Court on this matter, I'm baffled as to how you can call it a "misinterpretation".

Have a read of this.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I'll see your Jeff Wall (assumption) and raise you an expert on the subject, David Barton.

Here is an excerpt from an article by him:

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination. A fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush.

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the establishment of a particular form of Christianity by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.

What are you trying to say here?

Just a comment against another oblivious anti Right Wing hate rant with no substance.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

I'll see your Jeff Wall (assumption) and raise you an expert on the subject, David Barton.

Here is an excerpt from an article by him:

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush.

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the establishment of a particular form of Christianity by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.

How is Jefferson's Wall of Seperation Letter an assumption?

I'm really unsure as to what you're trying to say here; that in no way discredits the idea that Jefferson wanted a seperation of church and state. What the above says is that the government will not restrict with the free exercise of religion. Sounds grand to me.

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

Just a comment against another oblivious anti Right Wing hate rant with no substance.

But you are ignoring the entire doctrine of case law here by writing off the Supreme Court's rulings as "misinterpretation". By which you are ignoring the doctrine of judicial review.

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Yup. Government was to protect all the churches (religons), not separate them. Here is more of the letter from George Washington to the General Committee of Baptist Churches in May 1789.

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension, that the constitution framed in the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and, if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. For you doubtless remember, that I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.

While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe, that they will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation I rejoice to assure them, that they may rely on my best wishes and endeavours to advance their prosperity.

In the mean time be assured, Gentlemen, that I entertain a proper sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and eternal happiness.

Dear oh dear.

Once again it's obvious you don't even come close comprehending the texts you post in what we can only assume is meant to be a defense of your incorrect view.

I say we can only assume, because nothing you've posted in content has contradicted the view that the Constitution intended the separation of Church and State.

Amerika

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm really unsure as to what you're trying to say here; that in no way discredits the idea that Jefferson wanted a seperation of church and state. What the above says is that the government will not restrict with the free exercise of religion. Sounds grand to me.

No, it says that the United States will not create it's own form of "The Church of England."

Amerika

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But you are ignoring the entire doctrine of case law here by writing off the Supreme Court's rulings as "misinterpretation". By which you are ignoring the doctrine of judicial review.

Founding Father's intent and Case Law are two completely different things. Case Law is simply new interpretations of the law. And if you go back to many of the founding father’s later writings about what their feelings were and look at that passage in the Constitution, you will see that the idea of separation of church and state was a misinterpretation.

Lockstep

It does indeed say that. Which is a given under such law.
However, it does not dispute that the wall of seperation exists.

Here's the ruling under "Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Hugo Black wrote:

The reasons underlying the Amendment's policy have not vanished with time or diminished in force. Now as when it was adopted the price of religious freedom is double. It is that the church and religion shall live both within and upon that freedom. There cannot be freedom of religion, safeguarded by the state, and intervention by the church or its agencies in the state's domain or dependency on its largesse. The great condition of religious liberty is that it be maintained free from sustenance, as also from other interferences, by the state. For when it comes to rest upon that secular foundation it vanishes with the resting. Public money devoted to payment of religious costs, educational or other, brings the quest for more. It brings too the struggle of sect against sect for the larger share or for any. Here one by numbers alone will benefit most, there another. That is precisely the history of societies which have had an established religion and dissident groups. It is the very thing Jefferson and Madison experienced and sought to guard against, whether in its blunt or in its more screened forms.The end of such strife cannot be other than to destroy the cherished liberty. The dominating group will achieve the dominant benefit; or all will embroil the state in their dissensions.... "

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Lockstep

Amerika wrote: »

Founding Father's intent and Case Law are two completely different things. Case Law is simply new interpretations of the law. And if you go back to many of the founding father’s later writings about what their feelings were and look at that passage in the Constitution, you will see that the idea of separation of church and state was a misinterpretation.

Yes, which must be done in accordance with the Constitution. It was common law and judicial review that was set up under the Founding Fathers.


Do you have any proof for the above at all?