1/ The envelope pls. Yes @mjstallman is right. Now, it wasn’t merely a private letter thanking the Danbury CT Baptists for their support and their gift of a whacking-great cheese (they were dairy farmers). TJ also released his letter to the simpático press. But
https://twitter.com/david_m_wagner/status/1539350308517814275
2/ the wall metaphor, and the positive spin on “separation of church & state” (Prof. Hamburger finds that b4 the TJ letter in 1802, this had always been an accusation, never a desideratum) are not part of the Const or any founding document. …
3/ SCOTUS cited “wall” and “separation” in a 1879 opinion, Reynolds v. US. It was rly dictum only, and Reynolds is enduringly controversial, tho also settled law. Then in 1947 Everson cited both TJ and Renynolds, and it was off to the races, …
4/ w many Americans thinking w of s is irl part of the Constitution.
Sotomayor’s assertion that Framers “fought for” w of s is not serious. They fought for independence from UK, incl, re New Englanders, independence for their state churches as against UK Established Church.
Sotomayor’s assertion that Framers “fought for” w of s is not serious. They fought for independence from UK, incl, re New Englanders, independence for their state churches as against UK Established Church.
5/ They then gave us a Const in which fed govt is disempowered from establishing a national church. (Applying this “hard federalism” solution *against* the states is awkward to say the least, but that issues was not raised in #Carson.)
6/ Biblio:
Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State
Steven D. Smith, Foreordained Failure: the Quest for a Constitutional Principal of Religious Freedom
Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State
Steven D. Smith, Foreordained Failure: the Quest for a Constitutional Principal of Religious Freedom
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
