Category Archives: Constitution

Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Struck Down in Florida

02 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Civil Liberties, Constitution, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The Republican Party’s War on the Poor took a hit on Tuesday:

“A federal judge on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing, setting the stage for a legal battle that could affect similar efforts nationwide.

Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando held that the testing requirement, the signature legislation of Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on the issue, violated the protection against unreasonable searches.

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote. The ruling made permanent an earlier, temporary ban by the judge.”

Governor Scott promised to appeal:

“Mr. Scott, who had argued that the drug testing was necessary to protect children and ensure that tax money was not going to illegal drugs, said that the state would appeal the ruling.”

What about the tax money being wasted on unconstitutional drug testing, Governor Medicare Fraud?

“Only 108 out of 4,086 people tested — 2.6 percent — were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it saved.”

Advertisement

Strip Searches for Everybody!

03 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Police State, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Same song, different verse:

“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing, wrote that…”

This time it’s about driving another nail into the coffin of the Fourth Amendment and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Strip searches for everybody!

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails.

The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities…The federal appeals courts had been split on the question, though most of them prohibited strip-searches unless they were based on a reasonable suspicion that contraband was present.”

Anybody still think this Court gives a damn about precedent and would hesitate for one minute before overturning the entirety of the Affordable Care Act? Dream on.

“Justice Breyer said that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband.”

But this is what passes for reason on the Roberts Court:

“Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.”

So let’s take the most extreme examples we can think of and use it as justification to strip search everybody who has an expired license plate or inspection sticker. Who knows, law enforcement might accidentally stumble onto one those “devious and dangerous criminals” who drive around with a burned-out tail light. And if the hijacker had been strip-searched on September 9 are we to assume that he had the plans for 9/11 shoved up his ass?

I’m convinced more and more every day that we’d be better off with the Diana Ross Supremes making decisions rather than this group of 5 Barnum and Bailey rejects in black robes.

What Else is New? Republicans Threaten, Sir Robin Backs Down

06 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Libya, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Republicans threaten to say mean things about Sir Robin Harry, so he backs down. As usual.

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) canceled a vote on legislation authorizing U.S. military action in Libya after facing pressure from GOP lawmakers, who warned they would vote the measure down in order to focus on budget matters.

[…]

Several Republicans complained about the Libya vote, noting Senate Democrats cited the debt crisis as the reason for canceling this week’s scheduled Independence Day holiday. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), for example, said he did not think it was worthwhile for the Senate to cancel its break if it did not deal with the nation’s financial crisis.

The discontent came to a head on Tuesday morning when Republican senators, led by Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.), took to the floor to express their opposition to a vote on the measure.

[…]

“The Senate is basically fiddling while America goes bankrupt,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).”

Good call. Ron. Whether or not a president can take us to war kinetic military action with out the consent of Congress is “basically fiddling” We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, we’ve got debt ceiling kabuki to focus on.

But there is time for meaningless, non-binding, “Sense of the Senate” resolutions, although I don’t see how you can put the words “sense” and “Senate” in the same sentence. Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

The War in Libya Drags On….Illegally

26 Sunday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Libya, Obama, Obama administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As, “days, not weeks” in Libya enters its fourth month, and now that the top U.S. admiral in Libya has admitted that the goal is regime change, despite this…

“Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

…and this:

“Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.”

Glen Greenwald asks this question:

“Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war?  Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?  Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”

Greenwald also has an explanation for the failure of Friday’s de-funding bill in the House. One that I hadn’t considered, but which makes sense:

“The so-called “de-funding” bill the House rejected yesterday was not really a de-funding bill.  It would have barred the spending of money for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others.  That’s why… dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted NO on the de-funding bill: not because…they were cowards who did not have the courage of their anti-war convictions; and not because the bill would have approved some spending for a war they oppose (though that is true), but rather because they were worried (appropriately so) that had that “de-funding” bill passed, Obama lawyers would have exploited it to argue that Congress, by appropriating some money for the war, had implicitly authorized Obama to wage it.

As Ron Paul — echoing the spokesperson for House progressives — said in explaining his NO vote on “de-funding”, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war…instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That was the reason so many anti-war members of Congress — including dozens of progressives — rejected the “de-funding” bill despite opposition to the war in Libya: because it was a disguised authorization for a war they oppose, not because they cowardly failed to check executive power abuses.”

And as Greenwald also points out, regardless of the outcome of the de-funding vote, the war in Libya is still illegal:

“Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal.  Under the law (and the Constitution), military actions are illegal if Congress does not affirmatively authorize them (either within 60 days or at the start, depending on one’s view).  The fact that the President has failed to obtain that authorization renders his ongoing war-waging illegal — period.  

[…]

Of course it’s true that Congress should act to stop a President who is waging a war in violation of the law and/or the Constitution, but Presidents shouldn’t wage illegal wars in the first place.  It is frequently asserted that Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the power and obligation to defend the nation, even though nothing in Article II (or any other provision of the Constitution) actually does that.  But there is an obligation which Article II does explicitly impose on the President: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  That includes, by definition, the War Powers Resolution (and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).”

Bush Taught, Obama Learned

20 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:

“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.

…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”

…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.

Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”

Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:

“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”

Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:

“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”

But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.

It All Depends on What “Hostilities” Means

16 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:

“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”

Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”

I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”

Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?

“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.

Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.

Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

Obama Invokes “State Secrets” in Assassination Plot

26 Sunday Sep 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama administration, torture, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”—James Madison, often referred to as the father of that antiquated, outdated, document known as the Constitution of the United States, which is now little more than an a la carte menu.

When the president of the United States has the power to order the assassination of an American citizen suspected of terrorist activities but charged with no crime, that is tyranny. And that is exactly the power President Obama is seeking, under the ever-increasing justification of preserving “state secrets.”

“The Obama administration on Friday asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit seeking to stop the government from killing an American citizen [Anwar al-Awlaki] accused of ties to Al Qaeda…In a legal brief, which was filed shortly before midnight, the administration included the contentious argument that litigating the matter could reveal state secrets.”

Glenn Greenwald at Salon:

“…in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate its legality.”

From the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (remember those?):

“The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy.”

Obstruction of Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller:

“If al-Awlaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions.”

Why would al-Awlaki, who is thought to be in Yemen, surrender to authorities when he has not been charged with, or indicted for, any crime? Sure, give himself up and be on the next plane to Jordan or Morocco or wherever the latest outsourcing torture extraordinary rendition site is, to be tortured and meet an untimely, accidental death. Oops.

But few people will notice and even fewer will care. Republicans don’t care because it’s one of “them” who is being targeted for assassination, never mind that al-Awlaki is a US citizen. He don’t look like a reel ‘Murrican. And they’ll take full advantage of the expanded powers of the Executive Branch the next time a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Democrats don’t care because their guy is in there now and they trust him with this power, for some reason that escapes me. Never mind that they would be screaming about the president shredding the Constitution if George Bush was still in office.

What Hath 9/11 Wrought?

11 Saturday Sep 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama administration, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 11, 2001 has been dubbed ‘The Day That Changed America’ and indeed it did. Indeed it did—and not for the better. It changed America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the increasingly less free and the home of ‘do whatever it takes to keep us safe.’ It changed us from a country governed by the founding principles of due process, equal justice, and the rule of law to a country where indefinite detention without charges or trials are an accepted practice. Where the Executive Branch, aided and abetted by the Judicial Branch, can be exempted from accountability from what were once considered war crimes simply by invoking the vague and all-encompassing claims of “state secrets” and “national security interests.”

These changes were exemplified in a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday when it dismissed a suit by five men who allege they were imprisoned and tortured under the Bush administration’s rendition program. The decision was also considered a “major victory” for the Obama administration, who appealed an earlier ruling which said the suit should go forward.

“In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ’s argument that Bush’s rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are “state secrets” and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts.  The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year’s ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the “state secrets” argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law.”

Not that this is any shift in direction. It’s just the latest effort by the current administration to continue, and in some cases expand upon, the policies of the former administration—policies candidate Obama denounced but President Obama embraces:

“Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”

The reaction to the decision from the ACLU:

“This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:

“The case yesterday is particularly egregious because it forbade a day in court for torture victims even if only non-classified evidence was used. Think of that for a minute. It shreds any argument that national security is in any way at stake here. It’s definitionally not protection of any state secret if all that is relied upon is evidence that is not secret. And so this doctrine has been invoked by Obama not to protect national security but to protect war criminals from the law. There is no other possible interpretation.

The Bush executive is therefore now a part of the American system of government, a system that increasingly bears no resemblance to the constitutional limits allegedly placed upon it, and with a judiciary so co-opted by the executive it came up with this ruling yesterday. Obama, more than anyone, now bears responsibility for that. We had a chance to draw a line. We had a chance to do the right thing. But Obama has vigorously denied us the chance even for minimal accountability for war crimes that smell to heaven.

And this leviathan moves on, its budget never declining, its reach never lessening, its power now emboldened by the knowledge that this republic will never check it, never inspect it, never hold its miscreants responsible for anything, unless they are wretched scapegoats merely following orders from the unassailable above them.”

To those who would “look forward” and give the Obama administration a pass here, ask yourself a few questions. If it were the Bush administration would you be so lenient? Let’s be very honest. If one administration is guilty of authorizing and condoning war crimes, is not the following administration, as evidenced by its actions, guilty of being an accessory to the commission of war crimes? I don’t see how any other conclusion can be reached.

Another thing to consider for those who may trust this far-reaching and unchecked expansion of Executive Branch power in the hands of President Obama—the power doesn’t leave with him when he leaves office. Would you trust it in the hands of President Palin? Think about it.

First they came for the suspected terrorists, and I didn’t care because I wasn’t a suspected terrorist………

Sharron Angle: Jefferson “Misquoted Out of Context” on Separation of Church and State

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Politics, Republicans

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle, was asked to defend a 1995 statement in which she said, “the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine.” Angle’s response was that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted…out of context.” Watch:

OK, here’s Thomas Jefferson in context, from his often-quoted letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“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, & 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 & State.”

Jefferson repeats verbatim the text of the First Amendment, that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” followed his own words, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Look up any definition of “thus” and you will see synonyms such as therefore, hence, and consequently. Substitute any of those words for “thus” in Jefferson’s letter and the meaning is crystal clear.

That’s Jefferson. What about the widely-acknowledged “Father of the Constitution” and the man who proposed the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—James Madison. What were his thoughts on the subject?

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Madison even saw the appointment of chaplains as a violation of the establishment clause:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

Ms. Angle, when it comes to matters of the Founders and the Constitution, speak not of what you know not. And don’t believe everything you read on a sign at a Tea Party.