"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson
An Anarchist's Proposal for Limited Constitutional Government -- Minarchy vs. Anarchy
The nine voodoo witch doctors in black robes, otherwise known as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), have undertaken upon themselves to rule on the constitutional validity of representations of the Ten Commandments on public (state) property. If past history is any guide, we can depend on the Supremes to cut off the heads of chickens, view the entrails, and maybe consult an Ouija board or two, as they try to discern the meaning of Constitution, especially the First Amendment. And it's not like there are more pressing issues that the Supremes should be tackling ahead of this issue ' like unconstitutional wars of aggression, torture, detentions, imprisonment, illegal searches and seizures, and the complete shredding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the criminal Bush regime. The state propaganda mainstream media are already gearing up for the circus, and between the Ten Commandments and Michael Jackson, will try to keep your average American completely bamboozled about what is going on in the world.
The task of the Supremes is to divine what these words from the First Amendment mean: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;' concerning a replica of the Ten Commandments being on state property. As any literate 8th grader with elementary reading comprehension skills (a problematic occurrence itself given what passes for education in the state indoctrination centers known as public schools) could tell you, this is not a hard task. All that needs to be determined is if Congress has passed a law, either to establish a national religion, or to prohibit people from worshiping as they see fit. Since this case is about a statue of the Ten Commandments, and not about a law Congress has passed on religion, it is completely outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There is no need for the Supremes to hold s'ances or divinations or roll dice or whatever else passes for judicial fiat. It is an issue for the individual states and individuals of those states to resolve. That people would think that this is a federal constitutional issue shows how little people understand the Constitution and the rule of law.
Most people view this issue as being part of the doctrine of the separation of church and state. Jefferson coined the phase 'separation of church and state' in 1802, well after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted. Regardless of what many people think, separation of church and state is not part of the Constitution, and any ruling of SCOTUS outside of the First Amendment on religious matters is unconstitutional. It is instructional to note from the previous link the following ' 'While Jefferson was powerless to change Connecticut 's law (the First Amendment did not yet apply to the states), Jefferson used the occasion to express his belief that no such law could be implemented on the federal level.' The bold emphasis is mine and should actually read the First Amendment had not yet been illegally and unconstitutionally interpreted to apply to the states. The Constitution was only a limit on federal government; all other rights were reserved for the individual states and individuals of the states. This quote provides insight on how judicial tyranny has been used to subvert the Constitution and remove freedom ' 'Separationists have long taken Jefferson 's 'wall' metaphor as an accurate and historically significant summary of the intent of the First Amendment.' Again the bold emphasis is mine, and people should realize that the words 'the intent' have been used to justify judicial despotism and enslave people to the state. From a plain reading of the First Amendment, the only prohibition the Constitution places on the federal government is that Congress may not pass any laws for or against religion. This prevents the creation of a national Church of America (similar to the Church of England), and prohibits making a law where people are required to participate in a religion. It also prevents the criminalization of unpopular or minority religious beliefs. And that's it ' no ban on prayer, religious relics, religious displays, or anything else about religion. All these other issues fall outside the realm of federal constitutional authority.
This whole issue is ludicrous however one looks at it, and is a good example of how the Constitution is a failure at binding the state, and instead binds individuals to the yoke of the state. While not unconstitutional, it is extremely hypocritical and deceptive that the state and its minions post anything concerning not murdering, not stealing, and not lying. If there was any justice and truth, every state agency would be required to post a large neon sign with the following message ' 'We are the state, we murder, we steal, we lie.' Also, it is ridiculous to think that SCOTUS can render a valid legal ruling outside of its realm of authority. Unless they return a ruling of no jurisdiction, which should have been evident after five seconds of deliberation, all other rulings are unconstitutional, a violation of the rule of law, and a usurpation by the state of individual freedom and choice. This is true even if you like the ruling, whether it turns out to be for or against, and you will only be cheering your own further enslavement to the state. In this, as with most things with the state, it is heads the state wins more power and authority; tails the people lose more freedom and individual rights. There is no possible good outcome from any ruling that will actually restore liberty and constitutional rights.
Some people are claiming that that this represents an attempt to establish a US theocracy, and are whipping up fear and hysteria that if SCOTUS does not render a ruling against the display of the Ten Commandments, America will disintegrate and all freedom be abolished. On the other end of the spectrum are those religious demagogues who demand the Supreme Court rule for the display of Ten Commandments, and if it does not, it will mean the death of justice and the end of all religious freedom. But if we look at this in light of previous SCOTUS rulings and federal judicial edicts, we find that this is just part of an ongoing civil war, being waged in the federal legislative and judiciary branches, between what today we would call the statist socialist liberal blue-staters and the statist fascist conservative red-staters. That is why there is such a premium on appointing federal bureaucrats, especially judges, who will illicitly rule how all Americans will be incarcerated to the state. Neither side cares for personal freedom or rights, only in grabbing the levers of the state, and forcing everyone to obey their dictates.
It is amazing that only as short as a 100 years ago that there was no Federal Reserve, Federal Income Tax, IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, FAA, FDA, DEA, BATF, EPA, and about a thousand other different federal agencies that exist today. Americans were individuals then, who prided themselves on self-sufficiency, and cherished freedom and disdained government. Americans then knew that neither they nor the state had the right to force people to act against their will. Now, for the most part, Americans have become a pathetic group of collectivists, who believe a majority of nine voodoo witchdoctors in black robes can determine how all Americans should live, and who place all their faith in the state. Americans now believe that they have the right to dictate how everyone should live, and that the state should force people to accept their whims.
This current debate by the Supreme Court is just another distraction that doesn't ask the right question. It is just like the endless debate over prayer in public schools ' instead of asking should prayer be allowed in public schools, the real question should be why we need these horrible state indoctrination centers that waste taxpayers' money while not educating children. So too, instead of questioning whether the Ten Commandments belong on state property, why not discuss if the state should exist at all. Without the state, we would have complete separation of church and state, the perfect wall that so many claim is vital for freedom. Without state property, there could be none of these public displays that so many find offensive and threatening. Without the state, we could live like individual human beings instead of like a collective herd of animals. Without the state, we could have liberty. It seems to me the best solution is the one most people won't consider at all ' eliminate the state.