Separation of Reality

By Michael The Libertarian

        In my post, yesterday, I mentioned that gift-that-keeps-on-giving, Tom Perez, head of the DNC.
        In a lecture in Indiana, he said: "The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn't have to be there."
        I posted Art. II and showed that the Constitution does indeed "create" the Electoral College - and that it does so in great detail.
        An acquaintance of mine - seemingly in an attempt at equivalence - mentioned Christine O'Donnell's "flub" about "Separation of Church and state" not being in the Constitution.
        I wanted to write about this, today. That phrase actually does NOT appear in the Constitution.
        Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about the intent that's been attributed to the First Amendment. I am well aware of the SCOTUS decisions that have been handed down that bolster this false belief of the phrase actually being in the Constitution. That's part of my issue.
        Every moron and his idiot sibling knows the words of the First Amendment:
                "Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting
                 the free exercise thereof; ..."
        We all know that the next phrase is about Freedom of Speech and I'll tie the two together in a subsequent writing, but let's just look at the germane part of the First:
        "Congress shall make no law, respecting an establishment of religion ..."
        First of all, as a Libertarian, I think those first five words are the most beautiful in the English language.
        Okay. So the first clause (often referred to as "the separation clause" or "non-establishment clause") isn't really a "separation". It prohibits congress (the "State") from telling me what I have to believe, which is cool beans. I like that.
        The second clause goes on to say: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
        That tells me congress cannot stop me from worshiping in any way I see fit. Obviously, certain activities have to be excluded (Human sacrifice comes to mind) because my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Once again, I don't want to get into the myriad (wrong, in my humble opinion) that SCOTUS has made while examining intent whenever the question comes up.
        So, we have a clause that says congress can't tell me what to believe and another that states they also cannot prohibit my form of worship. Notice what's missing?
        What is set up by the First Amendment is a "one-way" (I believe the legal appellation is: "Chinese") wall. The text takes no position on religion's ability to influence government. None.
        So, whence does the phrase originate, Michael?
        I'm doing this from memory, but I believe it was a confluence of two separate incidents. One would be Thomas Jefferson's letter to some clerics in (Danbury? Connecticut?) New England where he uses the phrase.
        Later, a SCOTUS decision (Reynolds v. United States which I believe is over-reaching) mentions a "wall of separation" (I think those are the words. Aw, hell! Who am I kidding. I just went and found the links!).
        To my mind, the SCOTUS mis-read and over-reached and changed the actual lexicon of American political discourse.
        Be that as it may, the facts remain: the Constitution absolutely created the Electoral College and the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in our Constitution.


                - Michael