The Colorado Wedding Cake Case and the Constitution

Readability

The Colorado Wedding Cake Case and the Constitution

If the Supreme Court still fol­lowed the let­ter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Con­sti­tu­tion there is only one pos­si­ble deci­sion they could reach in the case of Mas­ter­piece Cakeshop v. Col­orado Civil Rights Com­mis­sion. Because this case involves free­dom of speech and free­dom of reli­gion they would have to rule that they have no juris­dic­tion over this case. The pur­pose of the Bill of Rights is specif­i­cally to restrain the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from involv­ing itself in any in mat­ters involv­ing rights pro­tected by the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion believed if the fed­eral gov­ern­ment had juris­dic­tion over the Bill of Rights they would ulti­mately abuse this power and strip us of our rights.

The states alone have juris­dic­tion over God-​given Nat­ural Rights. The Bill of Rights of the Unites Sates does not apply to the states. The states have their own bills of rights to pro­tect the rights of those liv­ing in the states. I know this may seem con­tro­ver­sial to a great many read­ers of this arti­cle. That is only because the true mean­ing of the Bill of Rights and the Con­sti­tu­tion has been dis­torted by so many insti­tu­tions of this country.

Acad­e­mia, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, and the media are respon­si­ble for advanc­ing these dis­tor­tions. They only preach the mod­ern belief that the Supreme Court can over­rule the Sates on cases involv­ing the Bill of Rights. There is no proof of this located any­where in the actual text of the Con­sti­tu­tion, the text of the Bill of Rights, or the tran­scripts of the writ­ing and rat­i­fi­ca­tion of those doc­u­ments. There is abun­dant evi­dence sup­port­ing my claim that the Bill of Rights pre­vents the Supreme Court from rul­ing on cases involv­ing the Bill of Rights. In response to the Alien and Sedi­tion Acts, Thomas Jef­fer­son wrote the Ken­tucky Res­o­lu­tions, in 1798. The full text has been repro­duced here. Res­o­lu­tion 3 is proof that the Bill of Rights pro­hibits the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from inter­fer­ing with rights pro­tected by the Bill of Rights and pro­hibits the Supreme Court from rul­ing in cases involv­ing those rights.

Resolved, That it is true as a gen­eral prin­ci­ple, and is also expressly declared by one of the amend­ments to the Con­sti­tu­tions, that “the pow­ers not del­e­gated to the United States by the Con­sti­tu­tion, our pro­hib­ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec­tively, or to the peo­ple”; and that no power over the free­dom of reli­gion, free­dom of speech, or free­dom of the press being del­e­gated to the United States by the Con­sti­tu­tion, nor pro­hib­ited by it to the States, all law­ful pow­ers respect­ing the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the peo­ple: that thus was man­i­fested their deter­mi­na­tion to retain to them­selves the right of judg­ing how far the licen­tious­ness of speech and of the press may be abridged with­out less­en­ing their use­ful free­dom, and how far those abuses which can­not be sep­a­rated from their use should be tol­er­ated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridg­ment by the United States of the free­dom of reli­gious opin­ions and exer­cises, and retained to them­selves the right of pro­tect­ing the same, as this State, by a law passed on the gen­eral demand of its cit­i­zens, had already pro­tected them from all human restraint or inter­fer­ence. And that in addi­tion to this gen­eral prin­ci­ple and express dec­la­ra­tion, another and more spe­cial pro­vi­sion has been made by one of the amend­ments to the Con­sti­tu­tion, which expressly declares, that “Con­gress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion, or pro­hibit­ing the free exer­cise thereof, or abridg­ing the free­dom of speech or of the press”: thereby guard­ing in the same sen­tence, and under the same words, the free­dom of reli­gion, of speech, and of the press: inso­much, that what­ever vio­lated either, throws down the sanc­tu­ary which cov­ers the oth­ers, arid that libels, false­hood, and defama­tion, equally with heresy and false reli­gion, are with­held from the cog­nizance of fed­eral tribunals.

Dur­ing the rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the United States Con­sti­tu­tion there were numer­ous calls for a Bill of Rights that would pro­tect our most impor­tant rights by pre­vent­ing the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from inter­fer­ing with them. There were few, if any, calls for addi­tions to the US Con­sti­tu­tion that would restrain the states in any way. Dur­ing the writ­ing of the Bill of Rights in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives sev­en­teen amend­ments were writ­ten. Six­teen of the amend­ments applied to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment alone. The sev­en­teenth amend­ment, writ­ten by James Madi­son, did specif­i­cally apply to the states. Here is the debate involv­ing that amend­ment, which took place on August 17, 1789

Arti­cle 1, sec­tion 10, between the first and sec­ond para­graph, insert “no State shall infringe the equal rights of con­science, nor the free­dom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in crim­i­nal cases.”

Mr. Tucker. – This is offered, I pre­sume, as an amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States, but it goes only to the alter­ation of the con­sti­tu­tions of par­tic­u­lar States. It will be much bet­ter, I appre­hend, to leave the State Gov­ern­ments to them­selves, and not to inter­fere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I there­fore move, sir, to strike out these words…

This trans­po­si­tion being agreed to, and Mr. Tucker’s motion being rejected, the clause was adopted.

This amend­ment was one of sev­en­teen passes by the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. Here is the list. That amend­ment was not passed by the Sen­ate. Here is the tran­script of the joint res­o­lu­tion of the Bill of Rights that passed both houses. It does not include the amend­ment that applied to the states. It was also miss­ing from the Bill of Rights that was ratified.

I know the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states dis­tresses a lot of peo­ple because they believe the Bill of Rights of the United States Con­sti­tu­tion alone grants all rights to every sin­gle indi­vid­ual in this coun­try. That is untrue because all rights are granted to us by God. The Bill of Rights only pro­tects our rights by pre­vent­ing the fed­eral gov­ern­ment from inter­fer­ing with them in any way. Every state has a bill of rights to pro­tect the rights of those liv­ing in the states. The peo­ple of the states are the ulti­mate defense against the states encroach­ing on their rights. This is far bet­ter than leav­ing these mon­u­men­tal deci­sions in the hands of nine unelected indi­vid­u­als, who are essen­tially appointed to the Supreme Court for life. The Con­sti­tu­tion cre­ated a bot­tom up gov­ern­ment not a top down government.

The Supreme Court, the rest of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, and a great many indi­vid­u­als have been oper­at­ing under the delu­sion that the Four­teenth Amend­ment incor­po­rated the Bill of Rights down to the States. I dis­cuss this at length in this arti­cle,

It is wrong that the state of Col­orado is forc­ing indi­vid­u­als to vio­late their right of con­science, which is one of the most impor­tant God-​given Nat­ural Rights. It would be a far greater wrong if the Supreme Court stripped the right of con­science from every indi­vid­ual in this coun­try by rul­ing incor­rectly on this case. That is why the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Bill of Rights never granted the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment juris­dic­tion over our rights

If the Supreme Court still followed the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution there is only one possible decision they could reach in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  Because this case involves freedom of speech and freedom of religion they would have to rule that they have no jurisdiction over this case.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights is specifically to restrain the federal government from involving itself in any in matters involving rights protected by the Bill of Rights.   The framers of the Constitution believed if the federal government had jurisdiction over the Bill of Rights they would ultimately abuse this power and strip us of our rights.

The states alone have jurisdiction over God-given Natural Rights.  The Bill of Rights of the Unites Sates does not apply to the states.  The states have their own bills of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states.  I know this may seem controversial to a great many readers of this article.  That is only because the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been distorted by so many institutions of this country.

Academia, the federal government, and the media are responsible for advancing these distortions.  They only preach the modern belief that the Supreme Court can overrule the Sates on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  There is no proof of this located anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution, the text of the Bill of Rights, or the transcripts of the writing and ratification of those documents.  There is abundant evidence supporting my claim that the Bill of Rights prevents the Supreme Court from ruling on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, in 1798.  The full text has been reproduced here.  Resolution 3 is proof that the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from interfering with rights protected by the Bill of Rights and prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling in cases involving those rights.

Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.

During the ratification of the United States Constitution there were numerous calls for a Bill of Rights that would protect our most important rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them.  There were few, if any, calls for additions to the US Constitution that would restrain the states in any way.  During the writing of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives seventeen amendments were written.  Sixteen of the amendments applied to the federal government alone.  The seventeenth amendment, written by James Madison, did specifically apply to the states.  Here is the debate involving that amendment, which took place on August 17, 1789

Article 1, section 10, between the first and second paragraph, insert “no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.”

Mr. Tucker.–This is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of the constitutions of particular States. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the State Governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I therefore move, sir, to strike out these words…

This transposition being agreed to, and Mr. Tucker’s motion being rejected, the clause was adopted.

This amendment was one of seventeen passes by the House of Representatives.  Here is the list.  That amendment was not passed by the Senate.  Here is the transcript of the joint resolution of the Bill of Rights that passed both houses.  It does not include the amendment that applied to the states.  It was also missing from the Bill of Rights that was ratified.

I know the fact that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states distresses a lot of people because they believe the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution alone grants all rights to every single individual in this country.  That is untrue because all rights are granted to us by God.  The Bill of Rights only protects our rights by preventing the federal government from interfering with them in any way.  Every state has a bill of rights to protect the rights of those living in the states.  The people of the states are the ultimate defense against the states encroaching on their rights.  This is far better than leaving these monumental decisions in the hands of nine unelected individuals, who are essentially appointed to the Supreme Court for life.  The Constitution created a bottom up government not a top down government.

The Supreme Court, the rest of the federal government, and a great many individuals have been operating under the delusion that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the States.  I discuss this at length in this article,

It is wrong that the state of Colorado is forcing individuals to violate their right of conscience, which is one of the most important God-given Natural Rights.  It would be a far greater wrong if the Supreme Court stripped the right of conscience from every individual in this country by ruling incorrectly on this case.  That is why the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never granted the Federal government jurisdiction over our rights