NOTE: This is a lengthy post, but it is crucial that all Americans understand the argument made here. I cannot urge the reader strongly enough to read and — if necessary — re-read this post until the reader fully understands that the argument made here is that of the Founders and, as such, represents the only legitimate understanding of the issues involved.
UNDERSTAND THIS: THE COURT SIDED WITH THE SCHOOL IN THIS CASE!
This post just covers how the phrase, ‘Separation of Church and State,’ was inserted into the Constitutional debate.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had been actively working to destroy the Constitution for over one hundred years. Nowhere is this more clearly evident in its attack upon the First Amendment. In this post, I am going to show how this was done, and in doing so, I will demonstrate that the SCOTUS is no longer a legitimate agent of the law, but a lawless body of oligarchs. We start with the 1st Amendment:
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.
Now, let’s take this apart.
First: To whom is this Amendment addressed? To Congress!
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.
Second: with respect to religion, what does the First Amendment say to Congress?
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.
Next, let us make sure we understand the meaning of the language in the First Amendment, as it would have been understood at the time it was written and ratified!
The two most important words here are:
RESPECT’ING, participle present tense Regarding; having regard to; relating to. This word, like concerning, has reference to a single word or to a sentence. In the sentence, ‘his conduct respecting us is commendable, ‘ respecting has reference to conduct. But when we say, ‘respecting a further appropriation of money, it is to be observed, that the resources of the country are inadequate, ‘ respecting has reference to the whole subsequent clause or sentence.
This means that Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with…
The next word we need to understand is:
ESTAB’LISHMENT, noun The act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining.
This means Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with the creation of religion.
Now, let us consolidate what this means. In the plain meaning of the language in the First Amendment, there is no doubt that the Founders were clearly and forcefully stating that Congress is prohibited from writing any law that creates a National religion. With respect to religion and the First Amendment, this is the original intention of the Founding fathers and, until it is properly amended according to one of the two the Constitutionally provided methods of doing so, this remains the clear and undeniable meaning of the First Amendment.
[NOTE: this is clearly and unquestionably affirmed by the U.S. Congressional records dealing with the construction of the language of the First Amendment, in which the Founders’ intent was clearly to place a wall between the Federal government and anything to do with religion in any way: meaning the creation of a National religion, or blocking any American from freely exercising their religion.]
Next, let us look at the Constitutional authority of the SCOTUS:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
On the surface, this would appear to give SCOTUS the authority to hear religious cases arising from disputes between the States and/or citizens of different States. But this is not the case! Let me explain:
First, we need to understand that the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists make it clear that the Founders understood that they were giving very limited authority to the Federal government. The areas of authority that the Federal government was given were clearly stated in the ‘enumerated powers.’ Religion and matters dealing with religion were not listed in the enumerated powers. Furthermore, the First Amendment clearly and forcefully prohibits Congress from meddling in matters of religion. Finally, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment reserve the authority over religion to the States and the People, respectively. This means SCOTUS has and can have no — zero — authority over matters of religion. To the extent that there is a wall between Church and State, this is that wall: a separation between religion and the Federal government — not the States and their governments, but the Federal government only!
[NOTE: Here again, that this is the correct understanding of the Founders’ original intent is clearly stated in the records of the time. This cannot be rationally disputed.]
So, what does this mean? This means that SCOTUS should refuse any and all cases dealing with matters of religion. Even in the case of a citizen of one State claiming their rights have been violated by another State, or between a conflict arising between States, SCOTUS cannot claim jurisdiction as it is part of the Federal government, and the Federal government has been clearly and forcefully forbidden from touching any matter of religion.
This is the extent of my argument and, by rights, it should be sufficient to end Federal meddling in matters of religion. This is because my argument is entirely based on the historic record of what the Founders said and did, not upon what others have said the Founders meant. However, I know that there will be many readers will not be satisfied with this argument. Therefore, I want to examine additional aspects of this issue. We will start with Jefferson’s infamous letter:
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson
You can read the full text of the complete exchange by following the link posted above, but, for the purposes at hand, this is the section we need to address:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall
of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the
supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall
see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend
to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right
in opposition to his social duties.
First, understand that this is where the phrase, “separation of Church and State,” was found. The words are not in the U.S. Constitution.
The plain language of Jefferson’s letter affirms the argument I just made: that Jefferson understood the Federal government had zero authority to act in matters of religion and that, as President, he had a duty to defend this understanding. So, how did we arrive at the popular belief that the ‘separation of Church and State’ means the opposite: that the Federal government has a duty to keep any and all religion out of the public square? Well, it started here:
In the 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court wrote:
“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.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
OK, let’s start taking this apart.
First, notice that the 1947 SCOTUS affirmed the argument I made above!
“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…
Had the 1947 SCOTUS believed in the rule of law, they would have stopped there and dismissed the case without any ruling as they just admitted that they had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
[NOTE: As a legal aside, the Court is want to scream about case law and stare decisis (previous SCOTUS rulings). According to modern Courts, these — and not the language of the Constitution or its Framers — are the final word on Constitutional interpretation. Well then, when the 1947 SCOTUS issued its ruling, it violated its own standard of Constitutional interpretation. This is because, at that time, there were some 158 years of legal precedents dictating the opposite of their ruling, and several hundred years more of common law rulings also in opposition to the 1947 ruling. This means that the 1947 SCOTUS effectively amended the Constitution by decree, thereby nullifying both their ruling, as well as the legitimacy of that Court and any/all rulings it made from that point.]
However, the 1947 SCOTUS stated a legal falsehood. In other words, it lied! Notice these words:
“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…
This is absolutely not true! The 1947 SCOTUS lied!
READ THIS NEXT SECTION VERY CAREFULLY!!!
At the time that the Founder’s ratified the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were official, legally-mandated or protected State religions!!! In fact, to one degree or another, at the time of ratification, all thirteen State governments supported religion!
It was not until 1877 that the last State government, New Hampshire, ceased to officially support religion!
[Religion in the Original 13 Colonies. NOTE: this article claims that the 14th Amendment finally ended the States’ rights to control religion. Here again, this is not true! The 14th Amendment is yet another place where the 1947 SCOTUS deliberately twisted the plain meaning of the language and intent of the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment to justify their twisting of the 1st Amendment — but addressing this violation of the law is a subject for another post.]
What does this mean? It means that the Founders had no problem with an official State religion! They simply did not want a Federally mandated, National religion. Therefore, the way the Founders lived the Constitution they wrote and ratified bears witness to their intentions and understandings. This is why it cannot be denied: the Federal government has no authority over religion, and — since SCOTUS is part of the Federal government — SCOTUS has no authority in matters of religion. NONE!
Now, before we end this discussion, let us return to the 1947 SCOTUS ruling:
“…Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa….”
Dear Reader, here me clearly! THIS IS NOT LAW! This is a personal opinion that has no place in the law — especially since, as I have just shown, it is based in a lie!
Let me explain:
First: I have shown that the Founders did not give any authority over matters of religion to the Federal government, but they allowed the States to control and even establish official religions. This means that the 1947 SCOTUS ruling was clearly lying when they included the States in their opinion. Even if the 14th Amendment is wrapped into this issue, all we have is a twisting of the 14th Amendment used to support a twisting of the 1st Amendment. Or, if you will, a lie upon a lie. No matter how this is sliced, the 1947 SCOTUS unlawfully attacked the Constitution of the United States!
Second: when the Court claims that it has jurisdiction over things that any government does not do, or does by inaction… Dear Reader, this is a declaration of Oligarchal dictatorship! There is literally nothing that cannot be claimed to be allowed or denied by this reasoning. One need only claim that a State is allowing or prohibiting an action by silence and to claim jurisdiction to dictate to that government. It does not even have to be proven that this is the case. The 1947 SCOTUS didn’t even prove that the States were guilty of such action/inaction: it just accused and acted as though there had been a conviction.
But throw all this aside. The simple matter of law is this:
If there is no law, then there is no judicial jurisdiction!
In other words, unless there is a law for the SCOTUS or any other Court to interpret, then there is no authority for SCOTUS or any other Court to act — period!
Taken all together, it is clear: the 1947 SCOTUS acted lawlessly. They claimed dictatorial power over the entire nation, and SCOTUS as increasingly acted as a dictatorial Oligarchy ever since. This cannot be rationally nor legally denied. However, unless and until we stop these rogue courts, we will increasingly grant them legitimacy by our passive acceptance of their rule. The issue is this simple. We either dissolve and replace the Courts — all of them — or we become their slaves.
ADDITIONAL READING:
The Supreme Court’s Decisions on the Separation of Church and State Are Flawed
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Thank you again! Great perspective… People need to wake up.