Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a video clip of Glenn Beck citing, of all people, Thomas Jefferson while claiming that there is no separation of church and state and that the First Amendment's religion clause was only meant to protect the churches from the state. This is standard religious right rhetoric but it is inaccurate - and not even close when one is trying to attribute it to Jefferson, for crying out loud.
Now let's look at what Jefferson had to say about the government even making a suggestion that citizens should pray and fast. This was in response to a minister named Samuel Miller, who wrote to Jefferson asking him why he didn't issue declarations of prayer and thanksgiving the way his predecessors had. His response was that such declarations, even when entirely voluntary, overstepped the bounds of the government's legitimate authority:
Sir, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. 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 U.S. 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. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
Jefferson is the last person who can be enlisted in the battle against church/state separation.
Politics
Comments
Ed--not sure where you cut/pasted that bit of Jefferson, but it has several errors which damage its power. Including the ampersands makes it seem direct but it isn't. I doubt Glenn Beck is clever enough to exploit punctuation errors--he's more the "just say it's so" type of liar--but we should have it right. Unless I'm wrong and TJ made the errors in the original, which is equally interesting.
A partial list--three consecutive apostrophes (it's instead of its) in para 1, and the loss of a comma which renders nonsensical the lovely short zeugma "Enjoining them, an act of discipline." I checked at the UVA site http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm but those are only excerpts.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 30, 2009 9:28 AM
Whether Beck understands that Jefferson does not support him is debatable but beck's fans haven't a clue nor a desire to get one.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 30, 2009 9:36 AM
Man, that reminds me of the time I was watching some "hip" religious show for teens on TBN. The host actually had the balls to pull out a copy of the Jefferson Bible (aka: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) to make a point on how religious the founding fathers were and how it's so terrible that the government is supposed to be secular. I sat there stunned, thinking to myself, "There is no way in hell this guy has actually read that book".
Posted by: Imrryr | November 30, 2009 9:36 AM
It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's like the bullshit emails; all it matters is what the people hearing it wants to hear.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 30, 2009 9:45 AM
(*yelling at Beck*): YOU LIE!
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | November 30, 2009 9:50 AM
It has always baffled me that anyone can profess that idea after having given it even a moment's thought. Who, do they think, has the most to fear from some religious authority being allowed to have its dogma favoured by the state and enshrined in civil law, if not other, dissenting religious authorities? The idea of freedom of religion is nothing more than empty rhetoric unless you have the freedom not to practice someone else's religion.
Posted by: DaveL | November 30, 2009 10:25 AM
But he uses a chalkboard, just like the knowledge imparting authority figures of my youth. So he must be right.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 30, 2009 10:28 AM
"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[...]"
In other words: Jefferson supported an establishment of religion on the state, but not the federal, level, as one would expect from a Godly conservative. He understood that the people should not be compelled to worship a national religion (such as the United States' official standard of evolutionary atheism, as taught in public schools nationwide) but that, on a more local level, the people have the right and the freedom to express their religious principles through their government.
//
Posted by: mad the swine | November 30, 2009 10:32 AM
Hey Glenn,
Chris Rodda wants to ballpunch you.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 30, 2009 11:08 AM
Re mad the swine
The 14th Amendment takes care of that.
Posted by: SLC | November 30, 2009 11:39 AM
@SLC
Haven't you heard? The 14th Amendment is only applicable to slavery. Or so I've been told by posters on Free Republic.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 30, 2009 11:47 AM
RE mad the swine
Google "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom"
Posted by: Dogbert | November 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Ed:
I think you'd have learned by now that Beck doesn't care about facts or historical accuracy.
Same with Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk.
Either could claim that the South won the Civil War or Obama's father shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and as long as the listenership kept tuning in no one on the broadcast side would care.
All that matters to these mopes is filling airtime, keeping ad revenues up, and P1 listeners well fed with a steady diet of crap.
Posted by: CHV | November 30, 2009 12:06 PM
I love when these people use all the monuments in D.C. as evidence that the founders said we're a Christian nation. Don't they realize that the founders had nothing to do with any of these monuments or other buildings with "Judeo-Christian" religious inscriptions? All of these things were built long after the days of the founders -- most between the 1860s and 1930s. And, they just ignore the fact that there are just as many statues of and references to pagan gods and goddesses, and a whole bunch of zodiacs and other non-"Judeo-Christian" symbols throughout D.C.'s buildings. I think the city of Washington sends a clear message that we should worship the goddess Minerva, clearly the most exalted deity among the founders.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | November 30, 2009 12:10 PM
Chris @ 14:
One would also hope that these idiots understood that the entire system of American democracy was founded on a pagan, Greco-Roman model that was staunchly not Christian in any way, shape, or form.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to open a history book anytime soon.
Posted by: CHV | November 30, 2009 12:19 PM
I'm sure it was devotion to the Song of Songs that caused George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to give thanks to Jesus as they personally painted this image in the Library of Congress.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 30, 2009 12:30 PM
But, but--those history books were all written by liberal elitists, who have educations and stuff. None of them were probably written by Real AmericansTM. How can they be trustworthy?
Posted by: Josh | November 30, 2009 12:35 PM
They should be careful for what they ask for. If there is no separation of church and state then there is no longer an excuse for churches to not pay taxes.
Posted by: Seven | November 30, 2009 12:59 PM
Yes there is. The church tells the government what to tax, at what rate, and the government hands over to the church all the taxes collected and the people who don't pay. The church isn't going to tax itself…
Posted by: blf | November 30, 2009 1:32 PM
Hey, Beck? Who's stopping you?
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | November 30, 2009 2:17 PM
Posted by: R Hampton | November 30, 2009 3:25 PM
And how many of our first five presidents were Christians?
I used to work in downtown Manhattan and became friendly with the tour guide at St. Paul's Chapel. He told me that George Washington was not very popular in the parish (he attended while president) because he frequently snored during mass or whittled when he was awake. Washington would usually leave before the Eucharist.
Posted by: Tom | November 30, 2009 3:58 PM
Wow, Scott @ 16! Mr Ashcroft must have never made it to the library. Else he would have put a curtain over that!
Posted by: Coragyps | November 30, 2009 4:23 PM
So if Jefferson didn't want the government promoting religion, why did he put "Under God" in the Pledge?[/snark]
Posted by: BaldApe | November 30, 2009 4:55 PM
This is just ridiculous: Beck's on the TV several feet away from me right now (in this customer lobby Fox News is always on in the background). In the opening "Refounding America" animation, next to a photo of Jefferson, I see the words "Question with boldness." Um, is he even aware how the sentence is supposed to end?
Posted by: TK | November 30, 2009 5:08 PM
'"Question with boldness." Um, is he even aware how the sentence is supposed to end?'
Yep, he quotes it all the time. I don't fault him that, since he at least seems to understand the point that Jefferson was making to his nephew in that letter.
What gets me is his seeming inability to read correctly so many other quotes of the founders. For crying out loud, in that segment he's citing the guy famous for applying the Roger Williams coined phrase "wall of separation" to the purpose of the First Amendment in order to argue that there is no wall of separation!
If you'll notice in that segment, Beck is also citing the Jefferson quote at the Jefferson Memorial. This one: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Beck completely misses the point of the quote. It's not indicative that Jefferson believes that the United States is supposed to be a theocracy (which Beck apparently does, given that he believes the country is "founded" on the injunctions of the Ten Commandments, including the ones that command worship of God); The form of tyranny Jefferson is referencing in the letter that quote is taken from is that of those who seek to establish religion and that he is thus sworn to oppose them!
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl134.htm
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | November 30, 2009 5:51 PM
Dogbert wrote: "Google "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom""
Um, what's your point? As noted by the often-loony Mad The Swine, Jefferson says it should be up to each state. His state, Virginia, opted for religious freedom. He might well have thought that every state would be wise to do the same, but he clearly thought they should have the right to choose otherwise and institute a favored religion.
Posted by: Jon H | November 30, 2009 6:25 PM
Why is he using a chalkboard? They don't even have those in schools anymore. Don't tell him that CNN uses holograms.
Posted by: Eric R | November 30, 2009 6:41 PM
With all due respect to the late Mr Jefferson, why do we need to appeal to him to settle modern-day questions? Surely we have people alive today who are just as smart as he was and have the benefit of the 200 years of scientific knowledge accumulated since his time. Let the dead bury the dead and let the living come to their own conclusions about what works in a world that Jefferson might not have imagined.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 30, 2009 6:53 PM
For all of conservatives' talk about "Big Government" it never ceases to amaze when they advocate government getting involved with religion. I thought government couldn't do anything right, and they want it to enforce religious dogma?
Posted by: fry1laurie | November 30, 2009 7:06 PM
Daniel Dreisbach wrote a good book "Thomas Jefferson and the Separation Between Church and State" that gives some insight to the whole "Wall of Separation" issue. I have not read the whole book yet but so far he seems to making a good case that we have taken this far beyond anything Jefferson ever meant. He documents that Jefferson attended church services at the Capitol and proclaimed days of fasting as governor. He believed that the issue of religion should be left to the states it says here.
I would like to see Chris Rodda take a real scholar on instead of focusing on Barton. The "liars" motif barely scratches the surface of this whole issue. But I guess it sells book right?
Posted by: king of Ireland | November 30, 2009 7:54 PM
ice9 - The punctuation irregularities that you mention are all original to Jefferson's letter. The "it's" thing in particular is one of Jefferson's notable quirks, but he was very consistent in applying it. I'm guessing that Ed got the transcription from the Library of Congress site, and they got it from the Ford edition of Jefferson's papers - a relatively good transcription. The original letter can be viewed here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page040.db&recNum=810.
Posted by: Anna Berkes | November 30, 2009 8:27 PM
king of Ireland @ 31
FYI ... I actually do take on Dreisbach in my book. Dreisbach's book Real Threat and Mere Shadow is just chock full of historical inaccuracies, many of which I've exposed.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | November 30, 2009 8:53 PM
fry1 @ 30:
>>>For all of conservatives' talk about "Big Government" it never ceases to amaze when they advocate government getting involved with religion.
Not to mention when conservatives advocate that the state dictate how women can govern their own reproductive organs.
The GOP adores big government. They just want it on their own terms.
Posted by: CHV | November 30, 2009 9:05 PM
Curious to hear all your thoughts about the following:
"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. "
What if a state decided to "prescribe" some kind of religious discipline? Would you agree or disagree that a state has the authority to do that?
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:06 PM
Chris Rodda,
I will try and check it out. I think you should see my post titled
"A Challenge to ALL the "Cultural Warriors" on the Blogsphere" at
www.americancreation.blogspot.com. I think we are fighting the same
Battle chris. Just in different ways. There is a part one and part
Two followed by a post on John adams.
Posted by: king of ireland | November 30, 2009 10:07 PM
Not to mention when conservatives advocate that the state dictate how women can govern their own reproductive organs.
That statement couldn't be a greater distortion of the argument for abortion. The argument isn't about your reproductive organs, it's about whether or not it is right to kill an unborn child. Abortion proponents don't have a leg to stand on in the abortion debate, which is why they are reduced to fabricating and slaying non-arguments like this.
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:11 PM
mroberts @37:
That statement couldn't be a greater distortion of the argument for abortion. The argument isn't about your reproductive organs, it's about whether or not it is right to kill an unborn child.
Except what's keeping the unborn child alive is the mother's reproductive organs. Maintaining the ability to decide how one's internal organs can be used -- even when deciding to withdraw their use as a life support system for another creature -- is a basic human right. Nobody is obligated to use their organs to keep anyone or anything else alive.
Posted by: Adrienne | November 30, 2009 10:15 PM
mroberts:
You apparently need to get your ass handed to you about twice a month, in order to feel good about yourself. You keep trotting the same idiotic (and thoroughly debunked) memes every time you enter the comments threads. You're an idiot and a dickhead, STFU.
Posted by: democommie | November 30, 2009 10:28 PM
Except what's keeping the unborn child alive is the mother's reproductive organs. Maintaining the ability to decide how one's internal organs can be used -- even when deciding to withdraw their use as a life support system for another creature -- is a basic human right. Nobody is obligated to use their organs to keep anyone or anything else alive.
Sure, nobody is obligated to use their reproductive organs to get pregnant either. Seems to me that if one is willing to get pregnant, they should also be required to deal with the responsibilities that come with it. Sorry, but your right to decide how to use your reproductive organs does not override the right of another person to LIVE.
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:30 PM
Ah demo, back at it again. Demo, why are you such a hateful bigot? You need to be more tolerant of those you disagree with.
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:34 PM
Seems to me that if one is willing to get pregnant, they should also be required to deal with the responsibilities that come with it. Sorry, but your right to decide how to use your reproductive organs does not override the right of another person to LIVE.
Sustaining another creature with one's body is not a responsibility. It's a choice. A choice that can and should be up to the one whose internal organs are acting as the life support system. My right to not be forced to, say, donate a kidney or for that matter to try to save your life in any form with my body supercedes the right of another creature to use my body to stay alive. Case closed.
Posted by: Adrienne | November 30, 2009 10:35 PM
mroberts wrote:
It would not. At the time Jefferson wrote that, the states could indeed (and some did) violate the First Amendment. But the 14th amendment changed the constitution and applied the Bill of Rights to the states so that is no longer allowed.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 30, 2009 10:38 PM
Sustaining another creature with one's body is not a responsibility. It's a choice. A choice that can and should be up to the one whose internal organs are acting as the life support system. My right to not be forced to, say, donate a kidney or for that matter to try to save your life in any form with my body supercedes the right of another creature to use my body to stay alive. Case closed.
The case is far from closed, unless of course you dismiss 50% of the argument. What about the choice to get pregnant? Is not getting pregnant a choice? Why do you leave that choice completely out of your argument?
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:39 PM
It would not. At the time Jefferson wrote that, the states could indeed (and some did) violate the First Amendment. But the 14th amendment changed the constitution and applied the Bill of Rights to the states so that is no longer allowed.
I completely disagree. Using the 14th Amendment to override the power of the states and the freedoms of the people is wrong. The Founders would never have tolerated that. I also believe that the writers of the 14th Amendment would never have tolerated that. I believe the present application of the 14th Amendment to RESTRICT freedom is a complete misapplication of it. The 14th Amendment was intended to insure that the former slaves were granted all the rights of citizenship. It was NOT intended to be used as club to centralize power and allow the judiciary to micromanage the affairs of the states.
Posted by: mroberts | November 30, 2009 10:46 PM
The referenced clauses in the 14th Amendment in no way restricts or prohibits the freedom of the people. Instead the relevant clauses both numerate the protection of the freedoms of the people from the encroachment of state and local power against their reserved rights along with obligatating the federal government to defend those individual rights from state/local encroachment.
How does the spoon find the mouth? Maybe it finds the trail of saliva and slides its way there.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 30, 2009 11:08 PM
mroberts wrote:
What a bizarre statement. Government impositions of religious requirements IS a violation of the freedoms of the people. Prior to the 14th amendment, a state could tell you that you could not attend church and the constitution did not forbid that. Now, the bill of rights prevents the states from doing that. This preserves your freedom of worship, it does not violate it.
And as usual, you're wrong. When Sen. Howard proposed the 14th amendment language in the Senate in March, 1866, he made very clear that the purpose of that amendment was to, for the first time, enforce the bill of rights to the states:
Rep. Bingham said the exact same thing when he introduced the amendment in the House:
Bingham also declared on the House floor: "I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution."
There is no doubt that those who wrote and advocated the 14th amendment intended it to give the federal government the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states. That is how it was explained to the people at the time and that is how the courts have understood it from the start.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 30, 2009 11:22 PM
"What about the choice to get pregnant? Is not getting pregnant a choice? Why do you leave that choice completely out of your argument?"
Sometimes pregnancy is accidental, moron.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 30, 2009 11:25 PM
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
Just rubbing it in . . . Also, note the "or" operator; the main body of the Constitution noted a narrower description of protections by noting "privileges and immunities" which was Madison's original notation that the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution was partly a list of numerated, limited government powers while the people reserved their rights from dickheads like the resident masochist who seems to appear in a manner consistent with the phases of the moon for some sort of periodic ritual beatdown.
Arguing this set of clauses 'overrides the freedom of the people' is now what we should expect of the deluded modern day conservative movement - also now known as the remnants of the Republican base.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 30, 2009 11:50 PM
So no one here believes that the right to life of an unborn child trumps the rights of the mother to her choice? If so how many would not charge a gun man with murder who injured the pregnant woman but killed the fetus? All who are so passionate about how right they are on this should chime in. If not, then why be hypocrites?
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 1, 2009 12:44 AM
Ed stated:
"It would not. At the time Jefferson wrote that, the states could indeed (and some did) violate the First Amendment. But the 14th amendment changed the constitution and applied the Bill of Rights to the states so that is no longer allowed."
What right are you talking about? The right against the establishment of religion? Any quotes to prove that that is what they had in mind with the 14th Amendment? I disagree with religious assholes pushing their shit on people. No doubt about it. I also agree that individual rights trump states rights. But I am not sure what kind of coherent case can be made that would state that the 14th Amendment applies to that. I am against the Religious Right in most things. However, I am uneasy about how the Lemon Test was decided on Constitutional grounds. If the states want to be assholes and no clear violation of individual or minority rights exist then let them be assholes.
Why? More harm is being done to individual rights by the overblown and tyrannical federal government than anything else. Ed does a good job at laying out both sides of this power grab but most do not listen or care because of the Conservative and Liberal divide. People it is time to see that these are the labels that the elite want to put on us to divide and conquer us. Any doubt look at the quickly shrinking middled class in this Nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: king of Ireland | December 1, 2009 1:01 AM
Mrroberts - to further Tyler's point earlier, are all those women who stick thermometers in various places to gauge when they are ovulating, monitor the stickiness of their vaginal mucus, take fertility drugs and shots, have sex while almost standing on thier head, just being foolish? According to you, all they have to do is screw up their eyes real tight, wish to be pregnant and - bingo, bango - instakid.
Further, if you chose to eat that taco from a dodgy street-vendor in Mexico City, and later find out that you've ingested a tapeworm, does that mean you can't take medicine to get rid of it? What if you picked up a dose of the clap, or Bubonic Plague, or genital warts, should you be able to kill these things, bearing in mind you went on holiday willingly - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 1:02 AM
King of Ireland wrote:
The framers of the 14th amendment were very explicit in arguing that the first 8 amendments were incorporated against the states by that amendment. The establishment clause is part of the first amendment. But even if it wasn't, the free exercise clause should, by itself, prohibit a religious establishment because it is a violation of our right to religious freedom to have our government declare another religion to be the official state religion. It turns everyone else into second class citizens.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 1, 2009 1:19 AM
"So no one here believes that the right to life of an unborn child trumps the rights of the mother to her choice? If so how many would not charge a gun man with murder who injured the pregnant woman but killed the fetus?"
These two propositions are not necessarily contradictory, it depends on how you embed them in a particular logic.
I'm not trying to be a pedant here, but you can set up a hierarchy of rights, some of which undercut and defeat others. If we decide that an unborn fetus has a right not to be killed, that right is defeated in situations in which it is infringing upon the mothers right to control her own body. Just like your freedom of speech, when yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, is defeated by the right of the audience members from disruption and excessive danger.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 1, 2009 1:23 AM
KoI - in your hypothetical (#50) did the women hire the gunman to injure her and kill the foetus*? if so, why? There are safer (and cheaper) alternatives available. If not, then the women didn't choose to lose the foetus in this case, did she?
Can a person stand between another's right to choose simply because it offends their sensibilities?
How would an anti-abortionist (or anyone else for that matter) feel if they were told they couldn't go to see a movie, or drive a car, or own a gun because someone had decided they couldn't? Wouldn't they be outraged about the intrusion** in thier decision-making?
It also surprises me the amount of overlap between those who dislike killing clumps of cells, and those who are perfectly happy to execute another human being, or those who are content to send those precious children they have 'saved' to kill and be killed in a foreign land. Is that what those cells were 'saved' for?- DJ
-----------
* If so: "nice shootin' Tex!". But you have to admit the more likely scenario was that the shooting was not to kill the foetus (which, if following the average time-table for abortions, would be unnoticeable to the layman), but the women. Thus attempted murder would be an appropriate charge.
** one would assume by that overbearing, incompetent and sinister government no less
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 1:42 AM
"Ah demo, back at it again. Demo, why are you such a hateful bigot? You need to be more tolerant of those you disagree with."
Why? You act like an idiot, spewing your KKKristianist, racist or homophobic tripe depending on which thread you attach yourself to, lamprey like. You continuously bring the same tired arguments, dressed up in new sentences. You're a hack and a time wasting dipshit.
Being tolerant of you is akin to being tolerant of a dog taking a dump on my lawn. I know that you and the dog can't help yourselves. I also know that reasoning with the dog, or you, is an exercise that is bound to produce unsatisfactory results. You're full of shit.
Posted by: democommie | December 1, 2009 1:55 AM
To KOI the Mencken argument - Why is attempted murder a lesser crime than murder? Do we reward incompetence with a lesser punishment?
No hypocrit am I, I am a proud misanthrope who who gladly give parents the right to post natal abortion, say until the spawn reaches age of majority. Give them a little leverage over the bastahds - behave or you go to the Solyent Green factory!
Posted by: Onkel Bob | December 1, 2009 9:20 AM
King of Ireland, #50: If so how many would not charge a gun man with murder who injured the pregnant woman but killed the fetus?
I, for one, would not.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 1, 2009 9:26 AM
Onkel Bob - And once you and I get over retirement age I guess the kids get to send us old fogeys to the Solyent Green Factory. Quid pro quo :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 10:08 AM
DJ - Keep this adage in mind, age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | December 1, 2009 10:12 AM
Yeah but the little bastards can run faster, curse 'em! :) - DJ
Posted by: Dingojack | December 1, 2009 10:16 AM
We could consult the Good Book for guidance:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25
Looks like maybe a fine might be in order, which, to me, does not sound like a murder charge.
Posted by: Mandrake | December 1, 2009 11:01 AM
KoI- "So no one here believes that the right to life of an unborn child trumps the rights of
the mother to her choicea person to sovereignty of their body?"Fixed to state the actual position.
"If so how many would not charge a gun man with murder who injured the pregnant woman but killed the fetus?"
Like Chiroptera, I would not.
Posted by: Rick R | December 1, 2009 11:07 AM
As long as the majority of the public continues to know almost nothing about Jefferson, the conservatives will continue to puppeteer his corpse into parroting conservative talking points.
Posted by: llewelly | December 1, 2009 11:30 AM
Mrroberts,
The Civil War necessitated the 14th Amendment and ended the question of States' rights. To preserve the Union, to preserve Liberty, the Federal government had to protect the individual from the abuses of the States. Furthermore, Founders like Hamilton, Jefferson & Madison believed personal rights & personal property were one in the same, and would no more approve of the State taking private land then of taking civil rights.
Property
James Madison, March 29, 1792
...In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights...
...If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
Posted by: R Hampton | December 1, 2009 7:34 PM
Ed stated:
"The framers of the 14th amendment were very explicit in arguing that the first 8 amendments were incorporated against the states by that amendment. The establishment clause is part of the first amendment. But even if it wasn't, the free exercise clause should, by itself, prohibit a religious establishment because it is a violation of our right to religious freedom to have our government declare another religion to be the official state religion. It turns everyone else into second class citizens."
I am not sure if I buy that or not. But for sure this went against the thinking at the founding that left religious matters to the state. Even Jefferson felt this way. He did not proclaim fasts as President but did as governor. Did that violate anyone's right to free exercise?
With that said, it is clear that Jefferson did not want a national church or even a state church. Nonetheless, some of the asinine stances on the separation issue today are causing a backlash that is not necessary.
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 1, 2009 10:30 PM
KOI-
There is no question that the founding fathers did not intend to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. There is also no question that the framers of the 14th amendment did. The application of the establishment clause to the states is a long-settled matter of law. Even Justice Scalia would not attempt to change that, only Justice Thomas takes that position.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 1, 2009 11:01 PM
ED,
I am not saying I disagree just wanted to see where you are coming from. I think the 14th is misapplied a lot. Anything you have to read on why Thomas feels this way?
Posted by: King of Ireland | December 2, 2009 7:41 PM