« Rudy In Dixie -- I Love This Story | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Render unto Caesar

In Chicago, an illegal alien from Mexico doesn't want to be sent home. But instead of the traditional approaches of throwing lawyers at the problem or calling for help from the ACLU or "immigrants' rights" groups, she's fallen back on a far older solution: she's sought refuge in a Methodist church. And the pastor of the church, Walter Coleman, has extended his protection.

In the United States, there is no formal, legal recognition of churches as sanctuaries. There have been, on occasions, a certain de facto respect for such actions, as authorities tend to be chary of offending the devout in such sensitive matters -- if for no other reason than churches of all denominations tend to band together when one of them is assailed by the state, and are pretty damned efficient at marshalling the vote against the officials responsible.

It's also very easy to empathize with Elvira Arellano. She is an illegal alien, but her son Saul, 7, is an American citizen -- and to deport her would be to separate an American boy from his mother.

But the fact remains: she violated the laws. First by jumping the border in 1997. Then after she was caught and deported, she sneaked back across again. This time, she committed identity fraud by using a false Social Security number and worked at O'Hare Airport. (That's "airport," as in "place where airliners that terrorists love to crash and blow up take off and land.") When she was caught the second time, she ignored an order to report to Immigration officials and instead took refuge in her church.

I'll give her a bye on the first border-jumping -- she was caught and deported, so she's already been punished for that one. But she knowingly and willingly violated the laws of this nation when she crossed again, used a bogus Social Security number (and if that number happened to belong to someone else, caused them a huge headache trying to straighten out their own paperwork), and did not report to a hearing as ordered.

The Church, in my opinion, has no grounds here. The "persecution" she is facing is simply deportation to Mexico, and we are repeatedly told that Mexico is filled with honest, sincere, hard-working people who pose no threat to the United States. With all those honest, sincere, hard-working people, how could it be such a terrible place to return to? (This begs the question of why so many of them don't want to live there, but that's another topic.)

As far as separating her from her son -- I have no proof of this, but I suspect she saw her son as her "anchor baby," and his American birthright as her shield. (I also note a lack of a mention of husband or father in the story. Maybe that's why the church is so involved -- could it be another virgin birth?) This is something that needs to be addressed, but for right now I see no reason to shield Ms. Arellano from the consequences of her own choices -- she CHOSE to violate our laws repeatedly, she CHOSE to have a child when she knew she was living under the threat of imminent arrest and deportation, and she CHOSE to skip the legal fight to remain in this country.

Here's my solution: send a single ICE agent into Adalberto United Methodist Church to arrest her. The agent I would choose would be female, and as non-threatening and non-intimidating as possible. (I'm thinking someone perky and pixyish, like a young Katie Couric or Mary Lou Retton.) She should inform Ms. Arellano that she is under arrest and is to accompany Agent Retton out of the church. And should anyone try to interfere, the government is fully prepared to strip the church of its tax-exempt status and seize the property under RICO statutes.

The church feels it has a moral obligation to protect those being unfairly persecuted, and I can't really argue with that. (I'm speaking as a former Methodist myself, whose mother was very active in our local church. She was president of the Methodist Girls' Club, which was for congregants too old and insufficiently stuffy for the Methodist Women's Club.) But I don't see their duty to intervene to protect a parishioner from the logical and just consequences of her own repeated choices to violate the law.

There is no moral RIGHT for anyone in this world to come to the United States in the time and manner of their own choosing. We have quite possibly the most liberal and open immigration policies in the world, and if people don't think they're lax, they are free to work to change those laws.

But they do not have the right to simply say they don't apply to them and do as they wish. And no group -- not even a church -- has the right to declare them invalid.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Render unto Caesar:

Comments (43)

Oh, but remember the church... (Below threshold)
epador:

Oh, but remember the church involvement with the Underground Railroad, defying slavery laws. Somehow that precedent is used to justify them in the 60's spiriting draft dodgers to Canada and now a new breed of criminal from going South.

It ain't the same.

"And should anyone try t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"And should anyone try to interfere, the government is fully prepared to strip the church of its tax-exempt status and seize the property under RICO statutes."

Nice to see that the Conservofascist movement is finding support on Republican blogs. At least you guys aren't hiding your intents to destroy our country behind that "compassionate conservative" crap any longer.

The church has not "declare[d] them [U.S. immigration policies] invalid.". Granting temporary asylum (and you know its temporary, right Jay) while this woman sorts out her legal difficulties is exactly the kind of humanitarium effort we used to expect from American institutions... before Republicans managed to lie long enough to create stranglehold on political power in this country.

I have absolutely no doubt that in today's US political scene Jesus would be a card-carrying Democrat. With this post Jay gives us a perfect of example of why that is true.

and to deport her would ... (Below threshold)
Casey:

and to deport her would be to separate an American boy from his mother.

Why would deporting her have to separate her and her son? Can't she take him to Mexico? I have heard this argument against deporting illegals with anchor babies before and I just don't buy it. Just because their baby is a US citizen (I don't agree with that either but that is another rant) doesn't mean they can't live in their parents home country until they are of age and come here on their own and claim their birthright.

Of course. Jesus would expe... (Below threshold)
Robb H:

Of course. Jesus would expect you to abort babies, to cave to islamo-terrorism, to promote sex to 12 year olds, and to contribute nothing to society, but leach off of "entitlements", that's the basis for everything Jesus!

Cmon man, I'm not even a good christian, and can blow that one out of the water. I'm a fuzzy cute conservative!!

I believe that some of the ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I believe that some of the Pastors/Priest/etc. see illegal immigration from Mexico as strengthening a Christian presence in the US.

Some are basically left over communists or liberation theologists that use their religious positions as a tool.

The first group, the ones who want to pad the US populous with more Christians are sorely mistaken. The Mexicans like much of Europe are simply Diehard Socialists and Communists. Not in ideology, but when it comes time to vote and get candy from the government, they are. In Europe and Mexico, the anti-religious zeal in those groups are not as strong as the US. So many Mexicans will still vote Left and not be aware of the full consequences.

The Mexicans will vote Left regardless of the fact they will be voting for people that will undermine Religion and Christianity in particular. So those of you that think massive Mexican immigration is a way to offset the secularization of the US, you're dead wrong. It will hasten it.

Uhh, Lee Lee, Jesus would h... (Below threshold)
Red Five:

Uhh, Lee Lee, Jesus would have expected the church to follow the law (the whole "render unto Caeser" bit), but He also would have allowed us to change unjust laws through lawful means, or to disobey man's law when it contradicts God's law. However, the latter may get us into trouble, which is when it becomes persecution.

I doubt Jesus would be a Democrat were He on Earth today. I doubt He'd even be in the US. He'd be over in Israel (not "Palestine") fulfilling prophecy like He did 2000 years ago.

Nice to see that the Con... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Nice to see that the Conservofascist movement is finding support on Republican blogs. At least you guys aren't hiding your intents to destroy our country behind that "compassionate conservative" crap any longer.

Not allowing somebody to repeatedly violate immigration law is "destroying the country" now?

Wow.

Is bombing somebody who attacks us the same as trying to piss on God?

The church has not "declare[d] them [U.S. immigration policies] invalid.". Granting temporary asylum (and you know its temporary, right Jay) while this woman sorts out her legal difficulties is exactly the kind of humanitarium effort we used to expect from American institutions... before Republicans managed to lie long enough to create stranglehold on political power in this country.

Hmm. If a church did the same to, say, Eric Rudolph, I doubt you'd be nearly as supportive.

I have absolutely no doubt that in today's US political scene Jesus would be a card-carrying Democrat. With this post Jay gives us a perfect of example of why that is true.

But you Dems openly hate Jews. Seems to be self-defeating for Him.

Lee,I'm kinda curi... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Lee,

I'm kinda curious.

If it were, say, one of the Enron defendants trying to hide out in that church, would you be so understandding of their plight?

Casey said it right. Why sh... (Below threshold)
Dave in W-S:

Casey said it right. Why should deporting this person separate her from her son? That's why the US government issues passports. If the church really wanted to help, they could do the legwork for her to get her son's passport so they can travel together to Mexico.

To all of you whose home to... (Below threshold)
tyree:

To all of you whose home town has not been overwealmed by illegal immigrants yet...
Ignore hate mongers like Lee, and keep up the fight to defend our borders. The public high school my children attended was 93% caucasian in 1979. We know that simply stating racial statistics is not racist, so stick with me. The same school is now only 20% caucasian. The billboards in my area are all in spanish. I often go into a market and am the only white guy in there. According to my alumni association, I am the only graduate of my high school that still lives in the city limits. Having change forced upon you by illegal immigrants is wrong. One more thing, you wouldn't believe the number of people who think that what happened to me is OK because people that look like me did the same thing to other people hundreds of years ago. They do not, for some interresting reason, see that opinion as being racist. To them, I deserved to have my neighborhood removed, becasue I am white.

Lee once again shows his la... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Lee once again shows his lack of respect and utter disdain for the laws and sovereignty of the United States.

This isn't a conservative issue Lee, it's an American one. Constant violations of our borders and our laws do nothing to bolster our citizenry, yet for some reason you feel they have a right to come here. Why is that?

This woman is not seeking shelter while she sorts out her legal issues, she is attempting to hide from them. Big difference, and one that shouldn't be ignored by our immigration officers.

We should amend the Constit... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

We should amend the Constitution so that citizenship is not automatically granted just because a person is born in the U.S. Such an amendment would make our citizenship laws much more like those of Europe, and this would put an end to the anchor baby problem.

As far as letting people receive sanctuary in a church. That may not be a bad idea as such persons are basically imprisoned at little taxpayer expense. The downside for the person receiving sanctuary, would be that they could be tried in abstention. Eventually people what to be free, so I don’t expect most would stay too long.

"I have absolutely no doubt... (Below threshold)
tarheelcon:

"I have absolutely no doubt that in today's US political scene Jesus would be a card-carrying Democrat."

Based on what evidence?

And understand I do not think Jesus would have been a Republican. My pastor, who is a Southern Baptist, stated that both parties have missed the boat on the whole message of Christ. I am just wondering what part of the work of Christ places Him so clearly in the Democratic party?

The church is comitting a c... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The church is comitting a crime, short and simple. The Pastor should be arrested and tried as the criminal he is. I thought the church's role was to teach people to follow God's law and to be good citizens. This church is doing neither.

Hmmm.The real ques... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

The real question:

If Bush is so damn on top of illegal immigration then why is ICE dancing around this issue and turning it into a circus?

I hope this means that Wizb... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I hope this means that Wizbang recognizes the principle of separation of church and state.

Publicus: Don't know about ... (Below threshold)
scsi.wuzzy:

Publicus: Don't know about Wizbang, but I know I recognize the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. What are you talking about?

Two things that puzzle me a... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Two things that puzzle me about this woman. First is that on her interview on Fox News Chicago, the reporter asked her a question in English, a guy translated the question to her in Spanish, yet her answers were in English. Why would she need a translator then? An example is, he asked her something like 'don't you think you could/should have followed the proper procedures like everybody else to get in to this country?' and her response in English: "I am not a terrorist". Well no sh!t Sherlock, you're not a terrorist, you're an illegal alien, and I feel she's obviously being coached.

The second weird thing is that the church she's hiding in is of the storefront variety, and it's plastered with signs that read "Sanctuary", with scare quotes and all.

Two things that puzzle me a... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Two things that puzzle me about this woman. First is that on her interview on Fox News Chicago, the reporter asked her a question in English, a guy translated the question to her in Spanish, yet her answers were in English. Why would she need a translator then? An example is, he asked her something like 'don't you think you could/should have followed the proper procedures like everybody else to get in to this country?' and her response in English: "I am not a terrorist". Well no sh!t Sherlock, you're not a terrorist, you're an illegal alien, and I feel she's obviously being coached.

The second weird thing is that the church she's hiding in is of the storefront variety, and it's plastered with signs that read "Sanctuary", with scare quotes and all.

Sorry for the double post!<... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Sorry for the double post!

A liberal claiming that Jes... (Below threshold)

A liberal claiming that Jesus is on his side... that's priceless.

The Bible says that we should obey the laws of the land as much as possible - to the point where obeying such a law would be a full-blown sin. That's why Christian doctors often refuse to do abortions because that's obviously againt God's policy. However, illegal immigration is a different story alltogether.

Nice try, though, Lee, in claiming that God's on your side this time. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Don't you libs have elections to prepare for or babies to kill or something?

'Separation of church and s... (Below threshold)

'Separation of church and state' is an extra-constitutional phrase. The two mentions of religion in the basic document say that (1) you can't impose a religious test for holding office and (2) congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

I've always taken the establishment clause to mean the feds can't set up a federal church.

Hearing people squawk the phrase 'separation of church and state' like a mynah bird, with no understanding of the history behind it, makes my teeth itch. Especially when it is applied as a club against Christianity, as it most often seems to be.

As far as I remember, Chris... (Below threshold)

As far as I remember, Christ never said to go-down on Caesar, either. What he did say--over 2,000-times--is to aid the poor in any-way one can. We exploit and impoverish Mexicans with the factory-system we have down-there, we are on their necks.

http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/

Aha! Seperation of church ... (Below threshold)
LJD:

Aha! Seperation of church and state UNTIL it serves your purpose! Brilliant!

Now who has a SS# I can use, I don't want to pay taxes this year.

"Hearing people squawk the ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"Hearing people squawk the phrase 'separation of church and state' like a mynah bird, with no understanding of the history behind it, makes my teeth itch. Especially when it is applied as a club against Christianity, as it most often seems to be."

Parker - The "mynah bird" you are referring to is Thomas Jefferson.

Matt J:There are few... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

Matt J:
There are fewer than 2000 quotes from Jesus, TOTAL.
While Jesus was an advocate of the poor and oppressed, find me a quote or reference where He said one should break the law to do so? He advocated aiding the poor when it is within our power to do so, not by any means.

Hearing people squawk th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hearing people squawk the phrase 'separation of church and state' like a mynah bird, with no understanding of the history behind it, makes my teeth itch.

Ooh, me too. Let's look at the history behind it, shall we? How about the writings of Madison, who wrote the 1st Amendment:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

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).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Granted this doesn't have anything to do with this situation, I think they should go in and arrest her. But still, it's just a little something I like to pull out when people start claiming the separation of church and state was meant to be limited. It was in fact meant to be total.

To all concerned and FYI:</... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

To all concerned and FYI:

Jefferson used the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State" in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

The text (care of the Library of Congress) is here:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

To all concerned and FYI:</... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

To all concerned and FYI:

Jefferson used the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church & State" in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

The text (care of the Library of Congress) is here:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Ah, wonderful - responses f... (Below threshold)

Ah, wonderful - responses from at least two members of the 'I don't get it' brigade.

Publicus - Thomas Jefferson was not squawking the phrase like a mynah bird - that is a comparatively recent phenomenon. I am, in the main, referring to people who believe the phrase appears in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson was not one of these. But thanks for purposefully misunderstanding to make a dubious rhetorical point.

Mantis - I must have missed the amendment that incorporated the later writings of Jefferson and Madison into the constitution, thus making them part of our country's fundamental law. But again, thanks for the non-sequiter.

Certainly. the phrase 'separation of church and state' can be used in meaningful discussion and debate, as Jefferson and Madison did. Certainly, questions in this area will continue to arise.

This does not change the fact that people misuse the phrase and invest it with an authority it should not have - typically, but not exclusively, as a club against the religiously observant.

[On consideration, I'm sorry for the snark above, and apologize to you both. I will pray for the strength to act more out of love in the future, instead of from annoyance.]

Separating church and state... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Separating church and state is one thing.

But letting a church be able to trump the state by sheltering someone isn't acceptable. It gives that little church more power than the actual US government, since they can just decide to not let that government apply one or more laws.


I agree with much of the ab... (Below threshold)
Drew:

I agree with much of the above...including, it is time to start taxing churches. That way they could be openly political..that way they couldn't give refuge to those breaking the law...that way they could pay their fair share...
Is anyone against taxing churches and why?

Parker - I was inviting you... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Parker - I was inviting you to READ what Thomas Jefferson said since it was Jefferson who created the phrase and who influenced the Bill of Rights. (I don't know what dubious rhetorical point you think I was trying to make.)

You can decide for yourself what he means...but you will need to read it first! Here's that URL again:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Parker, you're talking abou... (Below threshold)

Parker, you're talking about the Catholic hating, klansman Justice who got the phrase rolling, right?

Well, one reason the pastor... (Below threshold)

Well, one reason the pastor of this church helped her out is because he's married to a fellow illegal alien activist friend of hers. This illegal alien is not some downtrodden woman, she founded a lobby group for illegal aliens called United Latino Family and has convinced Senator Dick Durbin and Congressmen Bobby Rush and Luis Gutierrez to actually sponsor bills in congress solely devoted to her receiving legal resident status.

She's no poor fool this woman. There's more info over at my Elvira Arellano archive on Diggers Realm where myself and the Freedom Folks have done some heavy digging. if you're interested in a little more informtion than just what the press is making this out to be.

I oppose taxing churches. ... (Below threshold)

I oppose taxing churches. I also agree with honoring the sanctuary function of a church. Firstly, on the sanctuary issue, as Mac Lorry said, it's almost like being in prison only it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.

As for taxing churches... not only do we not tax churches but up to 20% of individual income when donated to a church, like charity donations, is tax deductible (double the 10% tithe most churches suggest). The reason for that is that churches contribute to social welfare of all sorts. While a few televangelists are arguably crooks, churches run schools and hospitals and soup kitchens. They also take up donations to respond to local needs, such as a "shower" given for a grandma and two little girls removed from their home and forbidden to take any of their things (my sister says "crime scene") at my parent's church. Charity without the paperwork and BS of government welfare (which they got as well, but fell far short of furnishing an apartment or buying clothes.) One of our distinguished local ham radio operators runs his church's regional emergency response which includes at least one self-sufficient communications trailer that he took to New Orleans last year to help with the Katrina disaster. Would that even be possible if they had to report and pay taxes on donations?

Who would even bother? Just let FEMA do it.

Oh, and the separation of c... (Below threshold)

Oh, and the separation of church and state.

It can't be both ways.

I agree with much ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I agree with much of the above...including, it is time to start taxing churches. That way they could be openly political..that way they couldn't give refuge to those breaking the law...that way they could pay their fair share...

There’s no law against churches paying taxes now if they want to do so, and if they pay taxes they can openly engage in politics.

Is anyone against taxing churches and why?

Yes, the Constitution is against taxing churches.

There are two parts to the 1st amendment. The first part is the establishment clause most are familiar with, but the second part, the free exercise clause is often ignored even though it has the same legal standing as the establishment clause.

Taxing churches clearly violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland stated that "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." No religion can be exercised freely if it’s taxed out of existence.

Regardless of the establishment clause, every voter has the right to vote according to their own beliefs even if those beliefs are religious. In that regard, U.S. policy and actions have been and still are guided to some degree by religious beliefs. Thus, the respect for the church in this case.

I'm sorry to be faced with ... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry to be faced with seeming condescension after my most recent posting - I don't see how that forwards the discussion. (Also, I'm really not sure where DSkinner is coming from - perhaps he could expand?)

I don't really think anyone addressed my point - perhaps I did not make it clearly enough.

It did provide some interesting jumping off points, though, and thanks to those who provided links to the history of the phrase 'separation of church and state' - fascinating stuff in its own right. (I was familiar with the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association but not with the Madison quotes.)

Either I'm not expressing myself well, or I am missing something in the responses that would make them germane to my own postings - I think it is time to sit back for a while (unless, of course, my teeth itch again...)

Wouldn't ya know it Mac bri... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Wouldn't ya know it Mac brings up the Constitution..Mac that is so pre 9/11...

...and to deport her would ... (Below threshold)
LSmith:

...and to deport her would be to separate an American boy from his mother.

The kid is also a Mexican citizen; if she chooses to be separated from him when her deportation is carried out, that's her choice, not the government's action. He has the right to stay here, or return when he is of age (and presumably will then file the paperwork to get mom a green card so she can return and reside legally, call it the illegal alien anchor baby retirement plan.) She has no such right. There is good reason why US law does not automatically bestow or transfer any legal status on any illegal who pops out a kid on US soil, and she exemplifies it.

Surely she has been aware from the day she first illegally crossed into this country, particularly after her first deportation, and before and after she had her kid, that she was here illegally and was subject to arrest and deportation at any moment if caught, and consequently, her actions would adversely affect her kid.

And her kid is constantly described as a "special-needs child," or "has health/medical problems." He has ADD. How is this a life-threatening medical disorder that requires only US provided medical treatment? particularly after he improved, which caused the government to end theri extensions after 4 years? How many other illegal alien parents have children with far worse maladies and are thinking, hey, why aren't I getting the same treatment by the government, my Congressmen, and the media? Thus why her Congressmen ended their efforts to get her a green card by congressional bill and decree, called a "private bill."

Also, in today's Chicago Tribune:

CHICAGO -- Immigration enforcement officers do not plan to enter a storefront church on the city's West Side where an activist has sought sanctuary since she was scheduled to be deported this week, a government official said Friday.

Sure sounds to me like the government not only recognizes sanctuary. but fears those who invoke it. I can only wonder how many other illegals who arrogantly demand the right to stay, even after hse had her due process, a court hearing, and four years of extensions to depart the country, will flee to the nearest church as well, further mocking what little integrity our immigration laws have left.

This woman is an abject disgrace. She cares nothing for true "reform", as she is consistently referred to as an "immigrant-rights activist." her motives are purely selfish and in search of the TV camera lights. if she cared about reform, she'd be trying to make substantive changes and protesting in Mexico for economic and political reform.

Makes one wonder what Vicente Fox thinks about his embarassing citizen denigrating the wonderful country of Mexico and bashing the national pride. Surely the Mexican government can come up with a few bucks and a menial job of some sort to welcome her back into into the bosom of Mexico and save the image of Mexico as such a wonderful, tolerant, blameless paragon of human rights.

If the government backs down, or if some high-ranking official manages to stay her deportation and somehow allow her to remain here without consequence for her actions, I anticipate a certain amount of illegal alien anarchy by those who might pull the same or similar stunt and will expect the same treatment. Might make going to church for certain religions a little crowded with all the sanctuary-seekers who also want to stay in the US and have run out of options.

Parker,I thought y... (Below threshold)

Parker,

I thought you were talking about Hugo Black and how the phrase entered our current lexicon. Some other history on the separation.

DSkinner - thanks for the l... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

DSkinner - thanks for the links! interesting articles, especially the last one. I was familiar with most of it, but still a well-written description of the history and (ongoing!) controversy.

Recommended reading!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy