Justice Scalia's "original intent" overthrowing "settled law" becomes the USSC view.
Talking Point Memo has raised a PBS alarm flag rather than addressing the problem that PBS is pointing out (seems a stupid approach to me to shut down media discussion - PBS discussion - of what is a real - but hopefully unlikely - problem - but TPM is joined by many other sites on the web that are using the fact of a discussion to blast PBS (
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014659.php<SNIP> "Uh oh. This reads a bit like a pamphlet from Focus on the Family. In fact, "Wall of Separation" is a production of Boulevard Pictures, which explained on its website that this PBS special will explain that the Founding Fathers had "a radically different definition" of religious liberty than what we have today, and that "the modern understanding of the role of religion in the public square is exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended." ...If this is starting to sound to you like religious right rhetoric, we're on the same page...As my friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State found, there's reason to be skeptical about this new PBS special and those who put it together"<SNIP>).
A believer in Original intent would ask what is the problem, since if we don’t like what the Constitution says (and if this NO WALL is the conclusion then I do not like what it says), we change the Constitution, and not pretend there is a different meaning to the words. Our justice system depends on no creative interpretations of words so that a Court can not suddenly decide a law means something other than what was intended.
The fact that their may be a case for the original intent interpretation of NO WALL is the fact of state constitution for North Carolina, admittedly written before the Constitution, not being shot down by the Federal Courts despite being explicitly Christian and requiring Christian principles be incorporated into government - indeed with restrictions - allowing only Christians to run for public office - that have only recently been struck down by individual states or the Supreme Court because they were found to be a violation of what the First Amendment stands for.
Now this movie is propaganda -when quoting from Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson, a dark, minor key melody plays in a low register, but when Rhenquist criticizes Everson, a hopeful pentatonic scale sounds on a bright clarinet. But it is informative and PBS should be applauded for bring the problem, if there is to be a problem via GOP appointments to the USSC, into view.
The narrator reads from writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et alia. Jefferson's letter with the word WALL becomes more interesting when it is pointed out that Jefferson wasn’t involved in writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The writings of Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington and other founding fathers seems to indicate they were OK with the states doing all kinds of religious endorsements. Jefferson himself wanted Moses on the US seal, ordered Bibles for DC schools, wanted Native Americans converted to Christianity, had Chaplins in Congress, church services for the Military, invoked God in speeches, and issued days of thanksgiving and fasting while governor. Are these the actions of a man who believes in a impregnable wall of separation.
I believe the Constitution grows with the country without a need for constant amending - and that the Declaration of Independence is also part of our legal system.
But if I am wrong and original intent becomes the rules of the day, we will need an amendment to restore the WALL - and PBS should be applauded for pointing this out.