Current Event

Washington Times September 10, 2009(full article available on-line)

The argument was extraordinary in its timing, length and participants. It took place during the court’s summer break, almost a month before the start of the new term in October; lasted more than 90 minutes instead of the usual hour; and featured the Supreme Court debuts of Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the solicitor general, Elena Kagan.

It was, moreover, a rare re-argument. When the case was first heard in March, it centered on whether the restrictions on corporate spending in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law applied to the documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” which was produced by a nonprofit advocacy corporation called Citizens United. In the request for re-argument, the court raised the much broader question of whether it should sweep away restrictions on political speech by corporations.

………………

The McCain-Feingold law bans the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The law requires the government, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, to make an array of distinctions — among speakers, what they say and when they say it — that raise serious First Amendment concerns.

The court could rule in favor of Citizens United without making fundamental changes to the political landscape. It could say that the McCain-Feingold law was not meant to address 90-minute documentaries like the one at issue. It could say that the way Citizens United wanted to distribute the documentary, on a cable video-on-demand service, was not covered by the law. Or it could, as Ms. Kagan suggested, carve out some kinds of corporations.

………………..

Ms. Kagan disavowed a statement that a government lawyer made when the case was first argued in March. The lawyer said the government could ban the distribution of books paid for by corporations before elections.

“The government’s answer has changed,” Ms. Kagan said, adding that the Federal Election Commission had never tried to regulate distribution of books.

Chief Justice Roberts bristled at that statement. “We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of F.E.C. bureaucrats,” he said.

He then asked about pamphlets. “A pamphlet would be different,” Ms. Kagan said. “A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering.”

………

VS

Elena Kagan vs. The First Amendment

Founding Document

US Constitution, First 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.

We the People:

Chief Justice Roberts’ comment was as insightful as it was brief.  Indeed the right of speech is among those provided by our creator.  It is not granted by the federal government, so the F.E.C. cannot regulate it.  Ms. Kagan was demonstrating her logic against speech in pamphlets, which she could use as a Supreme Court Justice.

Current Event

According to  - FOXNews.com/AP  on  May 21, 2010(full article available on-line)

Tea Partiers had barely started their victory lap for propelling Rand Paul to triumph Tuesday in Kentucky's GOP Senate primary, when a controversy over the new nominee's criticism of the Civil Rights Act threatened to rain on the parade.

Paul was criticized Wednesday for saying in a series of interviews that he would have opposed forcing private businesses to integrate under the landmark 1964 law that banned racial discrimination. Paul clarified his remarks Thursday, saying he agrees with the goals of the law but questions the federal government imposing its will on businesses – a view consistent with his long-held libertarian beliefs but leaving him open to criticisms that he would allow racial discrimination.

………………………..…….

The Civil Rights Act was landmark legislation that outlawed racial segregation in schools, workplaces and other public places. It also banned unequal application of voter registration requirements.

……………

VS

Owners’ rights vs. Civil Rights

Founding Document

US Constitution, 10^th amendment

US Constitution, 9^th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We the People:

A hippie walked into a barbershop and plopped-down in the barber’s chair.  After a while, the owner paused from his conversation with the local sheriff’s deputy and told the hippie that he would sooner cut off an extremity of his own, than trim that hippie’s long hair.  Humiliated and angry, the hippie left.  That hippie is a long-ago acquaintance of mine.  Did that barber violate the hippie’s civil rights?

Rand Paul is exactly correct about the rights of a private business manager.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to force someone to serve another.  It is the prerogative of each state and the people.  To quote a Wall Street Journal editorial on May 24, 2010 “One tragedy of that era (of the Civil Rights Act) is that the frequent use of "states rights" arguments to defend Jim Crow discredited those arguments for decades and eased the way for federal intrusions on state power that really are unconstitutional.”

Maybe we need a US Constitutional amendment.  Perhaps each state should amend theirs. But our betrayal of trust in the states and the people in favor of federal Constitutional violations must be rectified.

Current Event

According to - FOXNews.com, April 22, 2010 (full article available on-line)

A Democratic congressman is seeking to strip the word "navigable" from the 1972 Clean Water Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to surpass the limits imposed by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the kinds of waterways the agency can regulate.

That word typically is interpreted to refer to any body of water that is "deep enough and wide enough to afford passage to ships."

But Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who worked on the 1972 legislation as a Capitol Hill staff member, said he is trying to restore the original intent of the law.

"I know what it means and it says the purpose of this act is to establish and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the nation's waters," Oberstar said.

Some Republican advocates of land rights are wary, fearing that striking the word "navigable" from the Clean Water Act will bring every lake, pond, creek or mud hole under the EPA's control.

"It potentially puts government in charge of all waters, including mud puddles, irrigation ditches," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. "If you take out 'navigable' in this bill, it could potentially lead to the federal government usurping state laws as it relates to water and regulating, therefore, mud puddles. I just think that's bad policy."

……………

VS

State vs. Federal control of waters

Founding Document

The Constitution, 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

This would have been another violation of the separation of powers, and yet another method for the federal government to withhold federal support to states which opposed it.

Current Event

From FOXNews.com April 02, 2010

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

"You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?" Sharp shouted back.

"I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare countered.

When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, "Doesn't matter to me. Either one."

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

"But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country," Hare said.

Sharp said the law won't do that.

The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the "maldistribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," Baucus said after the Senate passed a "fix it" bill to make changes to the health care law.

"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America," he said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."

VS

A congressman’s oath of office vs the US Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution; Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

We must sternly teach any Congressman or Congresswoman who displays such ignorance and disregard for the Constitution.

Current Event

According to - FOXNews.com, May 18, 2010

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted Monday that she has not read the controversial Arizona immigration law even though she's gone on television to criticize it, and continued to assert that it was "bad law enforcement law." 

The admission comes after Attorney General Eric Holder, who earlier warned the law could create a "slippery slope" toward racial profiling, told a House committee last week that he had not read the bill either. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he too had not read the bill, even as he defended diplomatic official Michael Posner for comparing the law to Chinese human rights violations.

…….

The Arizona policy requires local law enforcement to verify the residency status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and empowers them to turn anyone who doesn't check out over to federal custody. 

The law prohibits officers from solely considering race or nationality in implementing the law, though critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. 

…….

= = = = = = = = = = =  = =

According to ABC News May 26, 2010— (full article available on-line)

A team of Justice Department attorneys has written a recommendation challenging the Arizona immigration law.

The draft recommendation, part of an ongoing Justice Department review, concludes the Arizona legislature exceeded its authority in crafting a law that could impede federal responsibility for enforcing immigration laws.

Some department lawyers are also concerned that the law could lead to abuses based on race.

The review, however, is not yet complete and there are some within the Justice Department who challenge the recommendation's legal analysis. Sources tell ABC News that the ongoing review may take weeks more and that no formal recommendation has been sent to the White House.

……………

VS

Federal vs. state enforcement of immigration violations

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

US Constitution, Article II Section 3

He(the president) shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We the People:

What should a state do if the federal government refuses its constitutional responsibilities?  It should do everything it legally can do.  I see no phrase in the sections above which prohibit this law. 

Remember, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago law school; and apparently his administration is struggling to find legitimate grounds for a challenge.  He is gambling on this Justice Department’s threat.  In Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals”, rule number 9 is “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself”.  However if Obama’s bluff is called and he looses on constitutional suit, his credibility will surely suffer.

Current Event

Per transcript from This Week ABC, April 18, 2010 (full interview available on-line)

JAKE TAPPER: …………(regarding the Supreme Court nominee)…What advice would you give President Obama? Because Republicans are saying he's not including them in this.

CLINTON: Well, I think for one thing, I had to do a little more of that because I never had a filibuster-proof Senate. And now there are 41 of them, although I think that a lot of those who come from more progressive states, the two Maine senators, the new senator from Massachusetts, a lot of them may think they already gave it the store on the health care deal or whatever they're doing on financial reform. I think it will be very difficult to just outright block a Supreme Court nominee that's otherwise qualified. Especially after the Democrats confirm, allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas, and Justice Scalia and a lot of other people who were -- Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts.

My advice to him would be to first of all see what the court is missing. Does it matter if he puts a Catholic or a Jewish person or someone of another faith on a court, there might—there would be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Does that matter? Does there need to be another woman on the court? Should there be some other group represented? Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that. We've seen the hard way in the Citizens United case and campaign finance and in Bush v. Gore, during the most bizarre rulings in the history of the Supreme Court and I think one of the five worst, what the consequences of that are.

But I would also not -- I don't expect him to intentionally pick a fight with the Senate, but he can't avoid it. If he finds somebody that he thinks is just the best person, but the most important thing is he needs to be really proud of the people he puts on the court. The two people I put on the court have made me proud. I haven't agreed with every decision they've made. That's not the important thing. The important thing is that you think they're smart and they're competent and they understand the lives of ordinary people. Now one thing I think he should think about is have we gotten -- have we gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you're not qualified if you weren't a judge.

……..

VS

Supreme Court picks vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

The Federalist Papers, No 78; Quote by Alexander Hamilton on “Judicial Review”:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.

We the People:

President Clinton nominated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.  His advice to President Obama was not based using the constitution as a reference to interpreting law, or on avoiding legislating from the bench. And yet we are to believe that his Supreme Court appointees are the guardian for constitutional compliance?   Some officials’ appointments and approvals are based on politics instead of the Constitution; consequently the people become the last protector of it by whom they elect.

Current Event

According to New BerlinNow May 4, 2010 (full article available on-line)

”The biggest development in the New Berlin civic center in at least the last five years was narrowly approved by the Plan Commission on Monday, clearing its biggest hurdle.

…..

Use approval was a problem for the plan because city officials had envisioned residential development in the city center to be upscale, attracting people with enough disposable income to support the businesses officials hope to attract to the center.

But 72 of the 172 units will be what is termed workforce housing. The federal government will give tax credits to the developer to provide housing for singles and families who meet Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority income guidelines. The target market are people between the ages of 18 to 25 with incomes of $25,000 - $35,000. The median income in New Berlin is $74,000, said Jacob Klein, director of real estate development for Minneapolis-based developer MSP Real Estate Inc. The target would be a family of three or four people with less than $30,000, he said.

The other 100 units would be senior housing.

The project also needed three waivers, including one to not meet city parking requirements. The plan is 84 spaces short of the required 282 spaces. If proposed street parking is added in, the shortfall goes down to 52 spaces.

The vote in favor was 4-3.

Commission member Lee Sisson said when the Common Council approved the city center in the 1990s, it was understood that the residential would be upscale.

……

Officials always talked about upscale, higher end, Broge said, "And certainly this does not fit."

….

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  =

According to Regulatory Barriers Clearing house website of the Housing and Urban Development:

”By restricting redevelopment opportunities, local governments also restrict affordable housing.  (Suggested remedy) Allowing existing commercial properties to be redeveloped as workforce housing can increase housing supply.

High property taxes may discourage development of workforce housing.  (Suggested remedy) Requirements to build affordable housing coupled with tax abatements are effective incentives.

Zoning codes may not allow for development of workforce housing.  (Suggested remedy) Code reforms, such as, rezoning commercial lots, allowing accessory housing in all residential zones, and creating mixed-use zones can spur development of workforce housing.”

VS

Congress and Housing and Urban Development vs The People of New Berlin and the US Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

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;

According to www.usconstitution.net,  welfare is defined and clarified in modern context as follows:

“welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.”

We the People:

Such experiments with affordable housing near retail complexes have precedence for failure.  The now-demolished upscale Northridge Mall is a good example. 

Notice how anonymous federal HUD central planners are advising how to manipulate local zoning; and they are interfering through tax credit incentives to developers.  The permission to sidestep the Constitution through these methods was granted by our elected federal legislators, who we have not held accountable for distorting the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. 

There are no existing areas in which permanent overnight parking is allowed on the streets of New Berlin.  That change plus “the biggest development in the New Berlin civic center in at least the last five years” demands a vote by the full Common Council in my opinion.

Government by the people requires action by the people.  Today it is time to contact their Alderman and Mayor.  Tomorrow, they must be more careful who they elect to federal offices.

Current Event

From FOXNews.com March 27, 2010

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul -- ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans -- one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the "mal-distribution of income in America."

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit.

But some Republican critics have suggested the overhaul is taking the country down the path to socialism. The nearly $1 trillion legislation pays for itself in large part through new taxes on the wealthy -- Americans who make $250,000 and more.

………..

GOP strategist Matt Schlapp, the White House director to former President George. W. Bush, told FoxNews.com that Baucus' statement reflected the "duality" of a responsible Democrat who understands the ramifications of tax policy on Americans but has a "foot in the camp of the most radical and rabid big government activists that are advocating for some breathtaking policies."

"It's interesting," he said. "He's not the senator I would use as the poster boy for radical and misunderstanding of market dynamics."

But Schlapp said he's not surprised by anything said by a member of a political party that, he said, seeks "to take money away from people who are achieving and give it those who aren’t."

VS

Sen. Max Baucus and other Democrats vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

The US Constitution: Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

The founders recognized that in a pure democracy, the majority might take so much from the wealthy that they would stop contributing their talents to society.  The result is a constitutional republic which protects all minorities.  When modern leaders inflame class envy, they are indeed encouraging the suppression a minority group’s rights.  Obviously the 10^th amendment is violated in the process.  Such violations will expand if we tolerate it, and America will cease to be the land of opportunity.

Current Event

According to the Associated Press; January 11, 2010 (full story available on line)
SAN FRANCISCO
The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses.

The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.

Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.

The judge who will render a decision, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, has asked lawyers arguing for and against the ban to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among the questions Walker plans to entertain are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers.

"The case is intriguing, exciting and potentially very significant because it addresses multiple important questions that, surprisingly to many, remain open in federal law," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage director for the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal. "Can the state reserve the esteemed language and status of marriage just for heterosexual couples, and relegate same-sex couples to a lesser status? Are there any adequate public interests to justify reimposing such a caste system for gay people, especially by a majority vote to take a cherished right from a historically mistreated minority?"

The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to. The attorney general and the governor are defendants in the case because of their positions in state government.

………..

"Our story, I think, is pretty ordinary," said Perry, 45, the title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. "We fell in love, we want to get married and we can't. It's pretty simple." The women have been together for almost 10 years and since 2004 have been registered domestic partners, a legal relationship that in California carries most of the benefits and obligations of a full-fledged marriage.

Stier, 47, was married to a man for 12 years. She said the differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, part of what will be debated during the trial, are profound. She and Perry have to take extra legal precautions when they travel to states that do not recognize gay relationships and continually explain to friends and family what a domestic partnership is, Stier said.

…

VS

State of California and The US Constitution vs. the gay law advocacy group Lambda Legal.

Founding Document

The Constitution, 10^th amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

As Seinfeld would say; “I'm not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that”.

Judge Walker should comment on whether the federal government has jurisdiction, not on the arguments of same-sex marriage.  It is the prerogative of each state to determine the criterion for marriage per the tenth amendment.

Current Event

From: FoxNews , January 28, 2010 (full article available on-line)

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.

…………………….

"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."

But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.

"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

………………….

Betts said that despite the Foundation's accusations and letter-writing campaign, "The response to Mother Teresa has been overwhelmingly in favor of this stamp."

VS

An atheists’ group from Wisconsin vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

The US Constitution: First Amendment

Thomas Jefferson’s reference to the phrase “separation of church and state”:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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 should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson’s full letter is in the following link: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

We the People:

Honoring a Mother Theresa who happened to be religious does nothing toward establishing a national religion.  Thomas Jefferson was once again speaking to limit the national legislature from making such laws.  And yet the introductory paragraph from the “Freedom From Religion” website is as follows:

“The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

Paradoxically, FFRF works “to promote the constitutional principle” which is not in the constitution; and their effort “to education of the public” separates Jefferson’s quote from its context.