Refusing to Take No for an Answer
— Posted by John (November 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm)
A few weeks ago I posted about a student at Colonial Forge High School in Stafford, VA, who sued her school after she was told she would not be allowed to start a pro-life club.
Faced with a lawsuit, the school backed down, and the Pro-Life Club is now up and running, with the full permission of the Colonial Forge administration.
Huzzah!
Stephanie Hoffmeier with her mother, Bernadette [Washington Post photo]
The Washington Post had a great article yesterday about the student, Stephanie Hoffmeier, and her refusal to take no for an answer when the school denied her and her fellow pro-life students the right to have a club of their own.
Stephanie’s comments in the article indicate that she is sensible, devout, and humble—all excellent qualities for a pro-life leader:
“We just wanted the same rights as other clubs. It’s not a radical thing to expect equal treatment.”
“I feel God has put it [starting the club] on my heart for a pretty long time.”
“I just prayed and asked for God’s will to be done.”
“I’m just the one who took action. But there are many others — many, many others.”
God bless you, Stephanie!
[HT: Bryan Kemper of Stand True]
This entry is filed under Club News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Molly says:
I just read the article this morning on MSN. Good for her!
Comment posted November 7th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Robert says:
Well Done!
Comment posted November 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
B. Johnson says:
The following paragraphs help to explain how FDR’s constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs like Social Security actually led to the federal government’s scandalous ignoring of 10th A. protected state powers, the unconstitutional legalization of abortion being one of the consequences of doing so.
FDR essentially got the Supreme Court to ignore the 10th A. so that the Court would give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs. Then, as a consequence of having the political license to ignore the 10th A., renegade, anti-religious expression justices used this license to ignore the 10th A. to limit our religious freedoms. More specifically…
Justice Owen Roberts rewrote constitutional history in the Cantwell v. Connecticut opinion by writing the following.
“The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect.” –Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c
The problem with Roberts’ 10th A.-ignoring statement concerning state powers to address religious issues is that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state’s right. See for yourself.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States NO rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
“NO right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
And just as Justice Roberts’ had ignored the 10th A. protected powers of the states, misrepresenting John Bingham’s ideas about state powers, Justice Black later used Roberts’ license to ignore the 10th A., misrepresenting Thomas Jefferson’s ideas concerning c&s separation. This is because, regardless that Black wanted everybody to think that Jefforson’s “wall of separation” somehow meant that the establishment clause was supposed to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson did so at least three times. Again, see for yourself.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor 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 US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people…” –Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
1st Amendment: 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person to help justify his dirty work.
Are we having fun yet?
As a side note, consider that the 10th A. is not referenced any of the Cantwell, Everson or Roe v. Wade opinions where the “good” justices wrote their precedent-setting opinions. Special-interest, justices were evidently savvy enough to not bring any attention to the 10th A. protected powers of the states.
The people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread judicial corruption, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues is concerned, the Supreme Court’s scandalous legalization of abortion being an example of the Court’s ignoring of 10th A. state powers. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
Comment posted November 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » Discrimination! says:
[...] You might remember a series of posts from a few months ago about Stephanie Hoffmeier, a student at Colonial Forge High School in Stafford, VA, who made national news when she filed a lawsuit against her school for refusing to allow her to start a pro-life club. [...]
Comment posted January 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Valerie says:
Stephanie really is a sensible, devout, and humble girl. She is generous and isn’t afraid to live her life for the Lord. I may know plenty of christians, but I have yet to meet one quite like her. I know God will continue to use her, as he has been doing behind closed doors, where no one is there to write an article. She is the ultimate sister in Christ.
God bless you Steph! (even though you probably won’t read this
)
Comment posted November 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm