Does a separation of church & state exist even if that exact phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution?

Question

Did you ALSO know that nowhere in the Constitution will you find the exact phrases "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial"?

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there?

Answer 1

The government is prohibited from establishing a religion. (Making one and saying it's the one everyone has to be in.)

It's hard to imagine now, but the process of producing the Constitution was public -- with people publishing proposed wordings and arguments for and against this or that bit.

In one such writing, Jefferson wrote of a need for "a wall of separation between church and state" -- which is where we get that phrase, not in the document itself.

Regarding right to privacy, I keep wondering when the 9th amendment was repealed -- in effect it said, just because a right isn't specifically listed, doesn't mean it ain't a right.

Clearly, we're supposed to be free, except where there's a compelling reason to curtail our freedom (murder, as an extreme example -- the government has the right to forbid your killing people).

The phrase "right to a fair and speedy trial" is in the 4th, I believe, maybe it's another one -- you can use your favorite search engine to find the text of the entire Constitution -- don't have my print copy handy. That right is not to be infringed, as I recall.

As I say, the 9th says that we're assumed to have any right someone takes it in their head to squelch -- even if not on the list.

One of the reasons against the Bill of Rights was that, if they listed some rights, some moron would come along and say, of some other right, it isn't on the list, therefore isn't a right -- well, yes, morons have come along and said that, and no one mentions the 9th.

That's what the 9th is there for.

They wouldn't have included the first 10 ammendments unless they had that "and this isn't a complete list" bit added.

Not sure what your question or point is.

Myself, I have no patience with "letter of the law" people, as opposed to "spirit of the law".

The law is an attempt to get at a point.

When you dump the point to keep the words, you've lost the point, which was the point, if you follow.

Mindlessly following the words violates the purpose. You always need to keep the purpose in mind, as a guide to interpreting the "letter."

Answer 2

Of course anyone can deny that they exist if the words don't actually appear in the Constitution. The necessary argument would have to be FOR their existence.

The wall of separation between church and state is derived from the non-establishment, non-prohibition clause. In order to make sense of the two contradictory ideas, clear rules about when religion is being promoted or prohibited had to be declared, so that legitimate free exercise was not prevented, while government sponsorship did not occur.

The right to privacy comes out of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The right to speak freely implies the right to freely NOT speak, particularly in light of the right against illegal search and seizure and the right against self-incrimination. And the right to a "fair" trial is obvious from the Sixth Amendment language: "speedy and public trial", "confrontation of witnesses" and "impartial jury".

"Strict constructionalists" would argue against such "interpretations" because they expect to lose a social advantage in allowing them. But experience and reason suggest that the intent of the amendments is consistent with these ideas.

Answer 3

While the first ammendment doesn't actually contain that actual phrase, the phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "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."

Answer 4

According to the 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.

That says all it needs to. Congress shall make no LAW respecting either the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof, which precludes the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, which is an opinion written by Thomas Jefferson. In order to include this doctrine, the first amendment would first have to be repealed.

Too bad for those who want to stop hearing Christmas songs, seeing Menorrahs, hearing Hare Krsna's chant in the street, or having to hear a prayer said before a sporting event. People have the right to free speech, too, even if it offends people.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court has ruled that the first amendment calls for separation of church and state.

Answer 6

I think they went with the Establishment Clause because "wall of separation" is vague. The Establishment Clause is very clear -- the government will not *respect* an institution of religion.

Although apparently, for President Bush, giving money to institutions of religion isn't a form of respect.

Answer 7

Separation of church and state is a joke. If the Founding Fathers could see what the current secular humanist crowd has down to their constitution they would turn over in their grave. Separation of church and state started in 1947 when judge Black(who I think was once a member of the KKK, if I remember right) went against all 160 years of previous judicial history and ruled that there was some kind of a wall of separation between the church and state and then judicial precedent took over and they have ruled that way ever since. They've turned the constitution on it's head. If their intention, back in 1787, was to keep religion totally out of the government then why is the ACLU having to bring law suits to get the 10 commandments and other religious symbols out of government buildings all over the country? It's happening in every city and every town. How did all those symbols get there in the 1st place if that was the law of the land?
John Dewey is the founder of progressive education. That is the system of education we use in this country. He was the founder of our present education system. He was probably a communist, although he didn't say that because back in the early 1900's it was quite dangerous to your career to admit that you were a communist. But he loved the Soviet Union. He was also a lover of psychology. He hated religion, especially christianity. He was one of the founders of the 1st Secular Humanist Manifesto. But he was quite out in the open about his goals. His books are still in the library. You can read them. His goal was to change the culture in this country from a christian culture to a secular humanist culture and he was going to use the education system to do it. The idea was to get the countries population at an early age, when they were knee high to a grasshopper, and brainwash them for 12 years(K-12) and possibly longer(if they went on to higher education) in secular humanists thought. This process didn't start to effect this country until the 1960's. But over all it has worked well. The 1947 Judge Black decision was just a heavy hammer that they have used to accomplish this culture change. Separation of Church and state is a myth. It's not in our constitution.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

Answer 8

The US Supreme court says so. Everson vs. Baord of Education, opinion Justice Hugo Black, 1947.

Answer 9

It does guarantee that Congress cannot restrict our right to free exercise of our religion. That is pretty plainly expressive of the right of American citizens to religious liberty.

Answer 10

That was the intent. The term comes from Jefferson explaining what they had intended to do with the wording that they used. There is no doubt that was exactly what they meant.