Changes

Whether Justice Kennedy was correct in claiming that "federalism" enhances individual freedom is debatable.  Often the federal government simply intrudes into new areas without any regard for state government.  But there are times when the tradition of state government -- which precedes the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the United States -- does seem to protect liberty and freedom.   

Whether Justice Kennedy was correct in claiming that "federalism" enhances individual freedom is debatable.  Often the federal government simply intrudes into new areas without any regard for state government.  But there are times when the tradition of state government -- which precedes the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the United States -- does seem to protect liberty and freedom.   

An example is homeschooling, which is within the exclusive domain of state government.  Congress respects the role of the states and thus has not tried to regulate homeschooling.  When New Jersey tried to force homeschoolers to take the same tests that are given in public schools, a federal law requiring the withholding of federal money from States if do that became an obstacle.  New Jersey public school teachers gave up on their plan to force homeschoolers to take their tests because the teachers did not want to lose the federal money.  The result was more freedom for homeschooling New Jersey '''''because of federalism'''''.

An example is homeschooling, which is within the exclusive domain of State government.  Congress respects the role of the States and thus has not tried to regulate homeschooling.  When New Jersey tried to force homeschoolers to take the same tests that are given in public schools, an obstacle was a federal law requiring the withholding of federal money from States that compel homeschoolers to take public school tests.  New Jersey public school teachers unions gave up on forcing homeschoolers to take their tests because the teachers did not want to lose the federal money.  The result was more freedom for homeschooling New Jersey '''''because of federalism'''''.

So at least with respect to homeschooling, Justice Kennedy's observation is correct:  "freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."

So at least with respect to homeschooling, Justice Kennedy's observation is correct:  "freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."

The Fifth Amendment, in addition to protecting criminal defendants, also has provisions for all Americans which protect us against violation of our rights without "due process of law" (explained more below).  The Fifth Amendment further protects everyone against government taking our property without giving the property owner "just compensation" for what the property is worth.  "Eminent domain" is when government takes someone's land in order to build a highway or government building, but the Fifth Amendment requires government to pay the owner the value of his property in those situations.

The Fifth Amendment, in addition to protecting criminal defendants, also has provisions for all Americans which protect us against violation of our rights without "due process of law" (explained more below).  The Fifth Amendment further protects everyone against government taking our property without giving the property owner "just compensation" for what the property is worth.  "Eminent domain" is when government takes someone's land in order to build a highway or government building, but the Fifth Amendment requires government to pay the owner the value of his property in those situations.

Next let's now review in greater detail the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights mentioned above.

Next let's review in greater detail the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights mentioned above.

===Establishment Clause===

===Establishment Clause===

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, initially applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, initially applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially appeared reasonable in deferring to the states.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that States end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.  Sound familiar?  The Supreme Court took the same approach in ''Marbury v. Madison'' - let one side win, but base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially appeared reasonable in deferring to the States.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that States end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.  Sound familiar?  The Supreme Court took the same approach in ''Marbury v. Madison'' - let one side win, but base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” every morning.  States were free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, courts cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” every morning.  States were free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, courts cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The United States Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The United States Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit classroom prayer and other religious activity on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit classroom prayer in public school and other religious activity on government property.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit public school classroom prayer and religious symbols on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit this.

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”