Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be 'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So* - Part 2

 In “Just Because the SCOTUS Declares Something to be'Constitutional' Does Not Make It So”, I discussed the meaning and the origins of the 1^st Amendment and the 14^th Amendment and explored how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), as well as lower courts, have “folded, blended and mingled” the Bill of Rights with the 14^th Amendment by simply interfering that “free (freedom)” of the 1^st Amendment is the same as “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment.

I also demonstrated that if the writers of Bill of Rights, written to safeguard the STATES and the PEOPLE from a tyrannical NATIONAL government, had intended for “free (freedom)” in the 1^st amendment to mean the same as “liberty” as written in the 5^th amendment, would they have not said (wrote), “...nor be deprived of life, freedom, or property, without due process of law...” instead of the ratified amendment, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”? If one accepts that the writers of the 1^st and the 5^th meant two different ideas, then the writers of the 14^th amendment, written to safeguard the PEOPLE (particularly the newly freed slaves) from a tyrannical STATE government, and quoted the 5^th, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...” would have also said, “freedom” instead of “liberty”? Accepting these premises, let's look back at the opening shots of the war on religion and traditions that has lead to the destruction of American values.

McCollum v. Board of Education, a second look

The parents of various religious denominations asked and made arranged with the board of education in Illinois, that their children receive religious instruction for half an hour once or twice a week. This instruction was to be out of class, from unpaid special instructors utilizing classrooms, McCollum, an Atheist, objected and after failing at the state level, was joined by the ACLU, and made its way to the SCOTUS.

Now, a question that should be asked concerning this case is, “Did CONGRESS pass any law concerning the use of these classrooms for religious instruction?” NO, but it was assumed without any proof and has unfortunately become the practice the SCOTUS for many years as it decides to blend the 14^th amendment, written for the STATES, with the 1^st amendment and its companion articles of the Bill of Rights, written for the NATION only.

IF for a moment, we accept the assumption of the Court that the 1^st amendment had been brought down against Illinois, then the question needs to be asked, “Did Illinois pass any 'law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of...'”? NO and the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that no constitutional question existed under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution.

After hearing the case, Justice Black writing for the majority on the use of the classrooms said, "This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faiths. It falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment (made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1."

In the Everson case, Justice Black writing for the majority said, “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 from they adopt to teach or practice religion.”

What Should the SCOTUS Should Have Said

After taking jurisdiction of the Everson case, when it actually had no real authority to do so, the SCOTUS should have said that Congress gets no authority from the Constitution to spend any tax money in the States for any school purposes (subject for another time...OM). Since the schools are within the inherent police jurisdiction (Power of a government to exercise reasonable control over people and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare.) of the States and those schoolsare entitled to support by the STATE, whether they are public, private, or religious, providing the State Constitution does not prohibit it.

Now, since the 14^th Amendment was written for the STATES and makes no mention of the “freedom of religion” then the 1^st Amendment, written for the NATION, should not have been applicable to Illinois.

Even IF the 1^st Amendment was applicable, Illinois DID NOT levy any taxes for religious purposes, therefore, there was “no law respecting the establishment of religion...”. Using school rooms for other purposes other then education should not be any more objectionable then using those classrooms for the meeting of say a chess club, science club, debate club or any other local organization. Has America fallen so far that the people of a community can not decide on how they can use their OWN buildings for whatever reason they desire?

This would change in 1965 when Congress passed and Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By so doing, the Federal government now had complete control of the public school system and the states, like crack addicts, became dependent on Federal government funds and in many cases redirected funds that should go for schools to other purposes OR they built “luxury” schools.

This Federal control has now allowed that every time a religious symbol is displayed on public, STATE or Local government property, those who are following Antonio Gramsci's plan of changing the traditions/culture of a capitalist society into a socialist society come out from under their rocks, out of their basements and begin the lawsuits.

Unfortunately, as these lawsuits begin the LOCAL governments bow down and like cowards retreating from a battlefield find the easy way out.

Confusion and Mystification Reigns

The SCOTUS has and still confuses and “mystifies” the subject by its used of inaccurate language and improperly applying constitutional authority where none really exists and unfortunately once a decision is handed down, it is assumed by just about everyone that it is Constitutional when in reality should be reminded what Justice Joseph P. Bradley (1870-1892) wrote in an opinion (100 U.S. 339), “We may mystify anything. But if we take a plain view of the words of the Constitution, and give to them a fair and obvious interpretation, we cannot fail in most cases in coming to a clear understanding of its meaning. We shall not have far to seek. We shall find it on the surface, and not in the profound depths of speculation."

As Senator Rand Paul said, “Just because the Supreme Court says its constitutional does not make it so.”

Editor's Note:
The main sources used for this series were: Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, Devin-Adair Co., New York, New York, 1951.
Norton, Thomas James, The Constitution of the United States of America, Its Sources and Its Applications. The World Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1940.