Science > Abortion > Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage!
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Josh Rosenbluth" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2003 07:32:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308300038.4f86f5b3@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F4E5F04.3010909@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0308270631.39033d33@posting.google.com>...
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308262025.5323aaee@posting.google.com>...
The first amendment says that _CONGRESS_ shall make no _LAW_.
It doesn't say a state courthouse can't design whatever monument it
wants to for the building.
It also doesn't say that Alabama can't declare a State Religion.
Exactly, because they theoretically could. Not that I think they ever
would, of course.
So,
by your logic if Alabama does just that, it must be Constitutional.
It would be.
And Alabama can imprison anyone who doesn't practice that religion
(Constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply) and imprison anyone
who speaks out against the religion (Constitutional freedom of speech
doesn't apply)?
No, that's not what that would mean. They still couldn't prohibit
free exercise of citizens, so yes it DOES apply. It's *theoretically*
constitutional for a state to have an "official" religion, but it
wouldn't technically mean anything considering that individuals have a
right to practice freely, etc.
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
03 Sep 2003 11:45:08 PM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309011632.58496543@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308300038.4f86f5b3@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F4E5F04.3010909@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0308270631.39033d33@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308262025.5323aaee@posting.google.com>...
The first amendment says that _CONGRESS_ shall make no _LAW_.
It doesn't say a state courthouse can't design whatever monument it
wants to for the building.
It also doesn't say that Alabama can't declare a State Religion.
Exactly, because they theoretically could. Not that I think they ever
would, of course.
So,
by your logic if Alabama does just that, it must be Constitutional.
It would be.
And Alabama can imprison anyone who doesn't practice that religion
(Constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply) and imprison anyone
who speaks out against the religion (Constitutional freedom of speech
doesn't apply)?
No, that's not what that would mean. They still couldn't prohibit
free exercise of citizens, so yes it DOES apply. It's *theoretically*
constitutional for a state to have an "official" religion, but it
wouldn't technically mean anything considering that individuals have a
right to practice freely, etc.
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Apparently not, since by the time the First Amendment was ratified,
several states had established religions.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
04 Sep 2003 01:28:31 PM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309032045.62d59197@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309011632.58496543@posting.google.com>...
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308300038.4f86f5b3@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F4E5F04.3010909@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0308270631.39033d33@posting.google.com>...
by your logic if Alabama does just that [declares a state religion],
it must be Constitutional.
It would be.
And Alabama can imprison anyone who doesn't practice that religion
(Constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply) and imprison anyone
who speaks out against the religion (Constitutional freedom of speech
doesn't apply)?
No, that's not what that would mean. They still couldn't prohibit
free exercise of citizens, so yes it DOES apply. It's *theoretically*
constitutional for a state to have an "official" religion, but it
wouldn't technically mean anything considering that individuals have a
right to practice freely, etc.
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Apparently not, since by the time the First Amendment was ratified,
several states had established religions.
At that time (before the 14th Amendment), none of the First Amendment
applied to the states. Not the establishment clause, not the free
exercise clause, nor the free speech clause.
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states. Alabama can no longer have a state religion. It must also
recognize free exercise of religion and free speech.
Somehow you have deluded yourself into thinking that (today, or at any
time) the establishment clause doesn't apply to Alabama, but the free
exercise and free speech clauses do. Sorry, you are flat-out wrong.
Before the 14th, it was none. Since the 14th, it's been all. In
fact, there is no serious debate about it. Only a few stray loonies
spouting nonsense.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
06 Sep 2003 01:15:25 AM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309041028.6a03e41e@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309032045.62d59197@posting.google.com>...
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309011632.58496543@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0308300038.4f86f5b3@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F4E5F04.3010909@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0308270631.39033d33@posting.google.com>...
by your logic if Alabama does just that [declares a state religion],
it must be Constitutional.
It would be.
And Alabama can imprison anyone who doesn't practice that religion
(Constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply) and imprison anyone
who speaks out against the religion (Constitutional freedom of speech
doesn't apply)?
No, that's not what that would mean. They still couldn't prohibit
free exercise of citizens, so yes it DOES apply. It's *theoretically*
constitutional for a state to have an "official" religion, but it
wouldn't technically mean anything considering that individuals have a
right to practice freely, etc.
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Apparently not, since by the time the First Amendment was ratified,
several states had established religions.
At that time (before the 14th Amendment), none of the First Amendment
applied to the states.
Why would it need to?
Not the establishment clause, not the free
exercise clause, nor the free speech clause.
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states.
You mean the fourteenth amendment is a get out of jail free card for
leftists who hate the tenth amendment--you know, that amendment that
gave more power to smaller localities and less to big federal
government. But since you leftists love Big Brother Government, any
excuse to kill the tenth amendment was a welcome "advancement."
It's actually sad and pathetic to listen to modern day leftists try to
explain what the founders (the ones who talked about religion and God
a lot) "really meant" whilst trying to eradicate any public display of
the founder's religions.
Alabama can no longer have a state religion. It must also
recognize free exercise of religion and free speech.
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
<clip>
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church RecognizesSame-Sex Marriage! |
06 Sep 2003 10:48:12 AM |
|
|
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309041028.6a03e41e@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309032045.62d59197@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309011632.58496543@posting.google.com>...
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Apparently not, since by the time the First Amendment was ratified,
several states had established religions.
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states.
You mean the fourteenth amendment is a get out of jail free card for
leftists who hate the tenth amendment--you know, that amendment that
gave more power to smaller localities and less to big federal
government. But since you leftists love Big Brother Government, any
excuse to kill the tenth amendment was a welcome "advancement."
Quite the opposite. The 14th gives more power to *individuals* (not to
government at any level) by insuring that the abusive power of Big
Brother Government (the State) to violate basic individual rights is
prohibited. It is not a leftist idea. It is a liberal (as in liberty)
idea.
Alabama can no longer have a state religion. It must also
recognize free exercise of religion and free speech.
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause, not the free
exercise clause nor the free speech clause.
It is your contention that Alabama is not bound by the establishment
clause because the incorporation of the First Amendment to Alabama is an
illegal power grab by the federal government. Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Either the incorporation of the First Amendment to Alabama was wrong and
Alabama is not subject to *any* part of the First Amendment. Or, the
incorporation is right and Alabama is subject to the *entire* First
Amendment. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind already?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
06 Sep 2003 09:50:59 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5A01BC.5030907@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309041028.6a03e41e@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309032045.62d59197@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309011632.58496543@posting.google.com>...
So, the free exercise and free speech clauses apply to Alabama, but
the establishment clause doesn't?
Apparently not, since by the time the First Amendment was ratified,
several states had established religions.
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states.
You mean the fourteenth amendment is a get out of jail free card for
leftists who hate the tenth amendment--you know, that amendment that
gave more power to smaller localities and less to big federal
government. But since you leftists love Big Brother Government, any
excuse to kill the tenth amendment was a welcome "advancement."
Quite the opposite.
Lol, I don't think so.
The 14th gives more power to *individuals* (not to
government at any level) by insuring that the abusive power of Big
Brother Government (the State)
State governments are not "Big Government." You would have noticed
that if you read the stuff I posted about my own state's constitution.
to violate basic individual rights is
prohibited.
Your problem is radical individualism. You want to strip *all*
government of all power and allow individuals to run amok, as
evidenced by your willingness to call almost any human behavior a
"right."
Robert Bork does a great exegesis on the subject.
"Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of 'rights' incessantly, not only
to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities
but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced,
usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or
abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to
impossible. Rights inherent in the person, are claimed to be absolute,
and cannot be diminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that
suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral
evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a
community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for
previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have
been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and
"rights" cannot win every time..."
From Slouching Toward Gomorrah
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/bork.html
"Restraints on individuals by communities..."
"...community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists..."
Also see http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BorkCultureWar.shtml
There's a reason that the tenth amendment uses the word
"respectively"--because they knew what strikes a balance between
individuals and government.
(As an aside: Libertarianism assumes that people have the power to
govern themselves. Yet the framers of the Constitution wrote the
document for a God-fearing moral people...the Bible they believed in
wrote most of humanity is evil. Thus, their promotion of religion in
the public square. Can an evil people handle self-government? The
founders would have explicitly answered no. There's a reason the
issues that we argue today would never have come up in their time.)
It is not a leftist idea.
Yes it is. The framers of the fourteenth amendment would not have
argued against a public display of the ten commandments.
Further, "There's no possibility our forefathers would have ratified
the 14th Amendment if they had even the slightest suspicion that their
judicial employees would eventually distort it into an instrument to
trash their basic values. They probably recognized that values would
change, as time went on, and their laws would need to be revised
accordingly; but they knew that's what we have legislatures for; and
we get to elect the people who sit in legislatures." --D. J. Connolly
It is a liberal (as in liberty)
idea.
You don't know the difference between liberty and license; vice and
virtue. Thus you can't argue anything objectively.
That's why you're against public religion when the founders were
explicitly for it. You fear religion more than you fear government,
which is why power grabs by the Supreme Court bother you not at all
but a block of granite sends you into an absolute frenzy. You don't
know the difference between Federal Government and local government,
the difference between a republic and a democracy. Bork was correct
when he deemed such a discussion difficult if not impossible. I tend
to agree.
Alabama can no longer have a state religion. It must also
recognize free exercise of religion and free speech.
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause,
No it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are not a religion in and of
themselves, and an inanimate chunk of rock does not an establishment
make. As we see, as long as that monument sits there, the citizenry
can still pray or bugger each other at will. QED.
You ought to look up what the founders meant by "establishment."
You'd see that they didn't believe in the federal government promoting
one denomination of Christianity over the other; this did not stop
them from promoting pure Christianity in general, as evidenced by
their willingness to disseminate copies of the Bible and more-or-less
fund the printing of the same when the war and lack of printing
presses caused a Bible shortage.
not the free
exercise clause nor the free speech clause.
Where there is no establishment, presumably there is no limitation on
free speech and exercise. But, even when there is an "establishment"
there is not necessarily a restriction on free exercise and speech.
The founders knew this. Modern leftists are merely confused by the
whole religion thing, sort of like they are confused about what
constitutes "indecency".
It is your contention that Alabama is not bound by the establishment
clause because the incorporation of the First Amendment to Alabama is an
illegal power grab by the federal government.
This was never a problem until recently; the issue is the tender
sensibilities of irrational atheists who think they have a right to go
around and not be exposed to religion at all.
It's difficult for me to listen to radical atheist leftists try to
tell me what the framers meant by any of the amendments; this is
after they've decided that the framers obviously meant the ninth
amendment to protect porn and sodomy. Of course, the fourteenth
amendment does that too ;). I'm surprised that they don't just
interpret the second amendment as a protection of fisting and topless
beaches.
Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Not necessarily. The point is moot. It would be like arguing that
maybe someday leftists won't hate America, or that pigs will grow
wings and fly. Arguing implausable scenarios like state religions and
flying pigs is an exercise in stupidity. That's why I'm not going to
do it anymore.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church RecognizesSame-Sex Marriage! |
06 Sep 2003 10:30:34 PM |
|
|
Sneechres wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5A01BC.5030907@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309041028.6a03e41e@posting.google.com>...
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states.
You mean the fourteenth amendment is a get out of jail free card for
leftists who hate the tenth amendment--you know, that amendment that
gave more power to smaller localities and less to big federal
government. But since you leftists love Big Brother Government, any
excuse to kill the tenth amendment was a welcome "advancement."
Quite the opposite.
Lol, I don't think so.
The 14th gives more power to *individuals* (not to
government at any level) by insuring that the abusive power of Big
Brother Government (the State)
State governments are not "Big Government." You would have noticed
that if you read the stuff I posted about my own state's constitution.
We are all very happy for you if your state has taken upon itself to
adopt The Bill of Rights. States that do not are playing Big Brother.
The federal government is merely telling these states to stop violating
The Bill of Rights.
Your problem is radical individualism. You want to strip *all*
government of all power and allow individuals to run amok, as
evidenced by your willingness to call almost any human behavior a
"right."
Nice try changing the subject. We are debating whether the First
Amendment applies to the states.
[a lot of stuff on the above topic about individuals run amok deleted
becasue it has nothing to do with whether the First Amendment applies to
the states.]
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause,
No it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are not a religion in and of
themselves, and an inanimate chunk of rock does not an establishment
make.
It doesn't establish a religion, but it does respect an establishemnt
because it endorses religion.
You ought to look up what the founders meant by "establishment."
You'd see that they didn't believe in the federal government promoting
one denomination of Christianity over the other; this did not stop
them from promoting pure Christianity in general, as evidenced by
their willingness to disseminate copies of the Bible and more-or-less
fund the printing of the same when the war and lack of printing
presses caused a Bible shortage.
We are happy to know you think the government should endorse
Christianity (just so long as they don't endorse one sect over another).
Screw the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Let them be second-class
citizens.
Where there is no establishment, presumably there is no limitation on
free speech and exercise. But, even when there is an "establishment"
there is not necessarily a restriction on free exercise and speech.
The First Amendment prohibits a respecting of an establishment whether
or not it is coupled with a restriction on free exercise.
It is your contention that Alabama is not bound by the establishment
clause because the incorporation of the First Amendment to Alabama is an
illegal power grab by the federal government.
This was never a problem until recently; the issue is the tender
sensibilities of irrational atheists who think they have a right to go
around and not be exposed to religion at all.
It's difficult for me to listen to radical atheist leftists try to
tell me what the framers meant by any of the amendments; this is
after they've decided that the framers obviously meant the ninth
amendment to protect porn and sodomy. Of course, the fourteenth
amendment does that too ;). I'm surprised that they don't just
interpret the second amendment as a protection of fisting and topless
beaches.
Was that a yes or a no? Is it your contention that Alabama is not bound
by the establishment clause?
Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Not necessarily. The point is moot. It would be like arguing that
maybe someday leftists won't hate America, or that pigs will grow
wings and fly. Arguing implausable scenarios like state religions and
flying pigs is an exercise in stupidity. That's why I'm not going to
do it anymore.
You don't want to do it because it exposes your faulty logic. You want
Alabama to be exempt from the establishment clause but not the free
exercise and free speech clauses. There is no logic that allows for
that. Or maybe you really believe Alabama has the right to tell Jews
they cannot practice their religion (at least you'd be consistent).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
07 Sep 2003 11:07:54 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5AA658.6050206@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5A01BC.5030907@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309041028.6a03e41e@posting.google.com>...
Since the 14th Amendment, all of the First Amendment applies to the
states.
You mean the fourteenth amendment is a get out of jail free card for
leftists who hate the tenth amendment--you know, that amendment that
gave more power to smaller localities and less to big federal
government. But since you leftists love Big Brother Government, any
excuse to kill the tenth amendment was a welcome "advancement."
Quite the opposite.
Lol, I don't think so.
The 14th gives more power to *individuals* (not to
government at any level) by insuring that the abusive power of Big
Brother Government (the State)
State governments are not "Big Government." You would have noticed
that if you read the stuff I posted about my own state's constitution.
We are all very happy for you if your state has taken upon itself to
adopt The Bill of Rights.
You should take it upon yourself to look up state Constitutions
online. You'd see that pretty much all of them have adopted a bill of
rights of their own.
States that do not are playing Big Brother.
You should try to be more specific in your paranoid delusions. Then
at least we can address some of them.
The federal government is merely telling these states to stop violating
The Bill of Rights.
As far as I can tell, no state has done that recently.
PS: The power to tell the states what to do or not do lies in the
states' legislatures (the people). Supposedly.
Your problem is radical individualism. You want to strip *all*
government of all power and allow individuals to run amok, as
evidenced by your willingness to call almost any human behavior a
"right."
Nice try changing the subject.
It's not a change of subject, really. The government does, in fact,
have certain powers. This has always been necessary to a certain
extent. Encouraging morality and public religion could conceivably be
among them if the people of a state decide such, as history shows.
But the *real* issue here is that you're pissing in your pants over
the states having power, and to remedy the problem you propose the
federal government spank the state's hands and tell them 'no.' It
never occurs to you that this gives the federal government complete
control over both individuals and states. Thus, your objections over
Big Government make no sense, but then again nothing you have said
really does.
We are debating whether the First
Amendment applies to the states.
At the time of it's ratification, it did not.
Most of the states had provisions in their Const's. that said members
of the state legislatures had to be Presbyterians. This was after the
BOR was ratified. This went on until about 1880 or so.
Restrictions by the states on "free exercise" were not really unusual
(and, in certain rare cases, could be totally necessary). Again, this
goes back to empowering local governments over radical individuals;
local governments over federal government.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to separate the Federal
government from states and individuals.
State constitutions exist to direct the relation between states and
individuals. The people who live in a state should have power over
that state, they should decide the laws of that state. Memo to
Congress: You do nothing.
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted
[prevented] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline or practices. Clearly, 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."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS (1905).
"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 exercise suited to it, but have left them, as the
Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state
and church authorities..."
Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address (1805)
(Jefferson, of course, had nothing to do with the ratification of the
first amendment.)
It could be argued that if religious exercise is an unalienable
God-given right, then the states have no power to restrict it.
However, this is not enumerated in the first amendment, but rather the
fourteenth (which does not mention religion specifically either); this
is a separate issue. Again, the people of a state decide that their
state Constitution shall provide for free exercise, and of course, I'm
sure all of them have.
"Further, on a facial review, the object of the First Amendment, which
begins with the word "Congress", was clearly not intended to apply to
the States. Rather the intent of the First Amendment's 'establishment'
clause was, according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, '. . . to
exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.'
STORY, COMMENTARIES Vol. III, p. 728, §1871. Justice Story continues,
'. . . the whole power over the subject matter of religion is left
exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to
their own sense of justice and the State constitutions.' STORY,
COMMENTARIES VOL. III P. 731 §1873.
"This is confirmed by the preliminary draft of the First Amendment
proposed by James Madison to the House of Representatives in 1789:
'The Civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
any pretext, infringed.'
Proposed by James Madison, June 8, 1789, (Annals of Congress,
1:434-435) (emphasis added). See
http://www.louisville.edu/~tnpete01/church/basic4a.htm.
"According to the Secretary, Mr. Madison thought, if the word
'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of
honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might
obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a
religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if
the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment
directly to the object it was intended to prevent. (Ibid)
"In sum, the object of the First Amendment was to prevent the national
government from choosing one Christian sect [denomination] over
another and establishing a single national denomination.
"Moreover, the Framers intended the powers and limitations contained
in the U.S. Constitution to apply only to the federal government and
not to the States. For example, in the famous case of Barron v.
Baltimore, the Plaintiff sued to apply the Fifth Amendment to the City
of Baltimore. In its holding, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Marshall wrote:
'The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the
United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for
the government of the individual States. Each State established a
constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such
limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular
government, as its judgment dictated. * * * If these propositions be
correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the
power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.
Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed 672
(1833).
"For over one-hundred and fifty years, this was the original intent
regarding the scope and jurisdiction of the Constitution, the national
government and the Bill of Rights.
"However in 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education
(Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)), used
Jefferson's Danbury letter as a pretext to disregard centuries of
legal tradition in the common law, the Declaration of Independence,
the writings of the founding fathers, the notes and records of the
Constitutional Convention and over a century of American
constitutional jurisprudence. With the stroke of a pen, the Court
created a new 'law' by incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment (which
dealt exclusively with specific State powers) with the First
Amendment's federal provision against an 'establishment of religion'.
"The result of this legal hocus pocus was devastating: first, the
Court reversed 150 years of Constitutional precedent which limited the
First Amendment's application to Congress, i.e., the national
government; second, the Court declared that federal courts were now
empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the
national government, but the religious expressions of the people and
the States as well. Five years later in Zorach, the Court tried in
vain to resuscitate the First Amendment's original intent:
"'We are a religious people who institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being. When the state encourages religious authorities. . . it follows
the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature
of our people. . . . To hold that it may not would be to find in the
Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous
indifference to religious group. That would be preferring those who
believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . .[W]e cannot
read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to
religion.' Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)."
From "Original Intent and The Free Exercise of Religion" by Joseph A.
Zavaletta, Jr., Esq, 1997
http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html
The essay is adapted from a handout given to his students at UT
Brownsville
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause,
No it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are not a religion in and of
themselves, and an inanimate chunk of rock does not an establishment
make.
It doesn't establish a religion,
It doesn't respect one, either.
but it does respect an establishemnt
Really, which one? Last time I checked, most Christian denominations,
and a great many Jewish and Messianic religions believe in the ten
commandments. You could be an atheist and believe in the last six.
because it endorses religion.
It doesn't "endorse" a religion. It recognizes the ten commandments
as part of the historical heritage of this country. And they are.
Period.
You ought to look up what the founders meant by "establishment."
You'd see that they didn't believe in the federal government promoting
one denomination of Christianity over the other; this did not stop
them from promoting pure Christianity in general, as evidenced by
their willingness to disseminate copies of the Bible and more-or-less
fund the printing of the same when the war and lack of printing
presses caused a Bible shortage.
We are happy to know you think the government should endorse
Christianity (just so long as they don't endorse one sect over another).
The founders thought that the government should endorse general "pure"
Christianity--and they did. I'm sure you must believe you are ever so
much smarter than they were.
Screw the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Let them be second-class
citizens.
WTF are you talking about???
Where there is no establishment, presumably there is no limitation on
free speech and exercise. But, even when there is an "establishment"
there is not necessarily a restriction on free exercise and speech.
The First Amendment prohibits a respecting of an establishment whether
or not it is coupled with a restriction on free exercise.
The First Amendment was not intended to restrict the state erection of
a stone monument. It was intended to prevent a national Christian
denomination.
It is your contention that Alabama is not bound by the establishment
clause because the incorporation of the First Amendment to Alabama is an
illegal power grab by the federal government.
This was never a problem until recently; the issue is the tender
sensibilities of irrational atheists who think they have a right to go
around and not be exposed to religion at all.
It's difficult for me to listen to radical atheist leftists try to
tell me what the framers meant by any of the amendments; this is
after they've decided that the framers obviously meant the ninth
amendment to protect porn and sodomy. Of course, the fourteenth
amendment does that too ;). I'm surprised that they don't just
interpret the second amendment as a protection of fisting and topless
beaches.
Was that a yes or a no?
Depends on what time frame you're talking about. Since apparently
modern-day government doesn't believe in letting the states be free,
then they aren't.
However, that was not the original intent.
Is it your contention that Alabama is not bound
by the establishment clause?
Apparently it is now, in a complete repudiation of law and history, of
course.
I guess that's not such a problem for you.
Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Not necessarily. The point is moot. It would be like arguing that
maybe someday leftists won't hate America, or that pigs will grow
wings and fly. Arguing implausable scenarios like state religions and
flying pigs is an exercise in stupidity. That's why I'm not going to
do it anymore.
You don't want to do it because it exposes your faulty logic.
Does it matter when one's logic is faulty when arguing a scenario that
has no chance of ever occuring???
If a tree falls in the woods, and there are no leftist atheists around
to hear it, are they still corrupt, traitorous morons?
You want
Alabama to be exempt from the establishment clause but not the free
exercise and free speech clauses.
I want Alabama to do just about whatever it wants, and let the people
of that state decide what that is. I'm still not sure what part of
that idea of complete liberty you don't understand.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
08 Sep 2003 12:06:13 PM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309072007.6e7b4af1@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5AA658.6050206@att.net>...
We are debating whether the First
Amendment applies to the states.
At the time of it's ratification, it did not.
I agree. But since the 14th, it does. If it did not then Alabama has
the right to prevent Jews from practicing their religion. Nobody but
the wingnuts argues that Alabama has that right anymore.
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause,
No it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are not a religion in and of
themselves, and an inanimate chunk of rock does not an establishment
make.
It doesn't establish a religion,
It doesn't respect one, either.
but it does respect an establishemnt
Really, which one?
Judge Moore's stated purpose was to promote Christianity.
You ought to look up what the founders meant by "establishment."
You'd see that they didn't believe in the federal government promoting
one denomination of Christianity over the other; this did not stop
them from promoting pure Christianity in general, as evidenced by
their willingness to disseminate copies of the Bible and more-or-less
fund the printing of the same when the war and lack of printing
presses caused a Bible shortage.
We are happy to know you think the government should endorse
Christianity (just so long as they don't endorse one sect over another).
The founders thought that the government should endorse general "pure"
Christianity--and they did. I'm sure you must believe you are ever so
much smarter than they were.
Screw the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Let them be second-class
citizens.
WTF are you talking about???
Ask a few Jews, Muslims and Buddhists how they feel as citizens when
the government endorses Christianity.
Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Not necessarily. The point is moot. It would be like arguing that
maybe someday leftists won't hate America, or that pigs will grow
wings and fly. Arguing implausable scenarios like state religions and
flying pigs is an exercise in stupidity. That's why I'm not going to
do it anymore.
You don't want to do it because it exposes your faulty logic.
Does it matter when one's logic is faulty when arguing a scenario that
has no chance of ever occuring???
Given the license, the states will do what you think has no chance of
ever occurring.
For the record, do you think Alabama should have the Constitutional
right to deny Jews from practcing their religion? Yes or No?
I want Alabama to do just about whatever it wants, and let the people
of that state decide what that is. I'm still not sure what part of
that idea of complete liberty you don't understand.
I guess that's a "Yes" to the above question.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
08 Sep 2003 07:17:27 PM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309080906.562607ee@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309072007.6e7b4af1@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5AA658.6050206@att.net>...
We are debating whether the First
Amendment applies to the states.
At the time of it's ratification, it did not.
I agree. But since the 14th, it does. If it did not then Alabama has
the right to prevent Jews from practicing their religion.
Alabama has the right to do what it's citizens decide it should do.
Last time I checked, Alabama has a state constitution.
Jews that may live there can decide what it says.
Nobody but
the wingnuts argues that Alabama has that right anymore.
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop Muslims from practicing
certain parts of their religion (Jihad, admonitions to kill infidels)?
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop witchcraft type religions
from killing animals and drinking the blood (laws against animal
cruelty, license to slaughter, disease control)?
"Freedom" is never, ever absolute.
Please explain how a monument in front of a court building restricts
anyone's free exercise of religion or speech.
Moore's monument violates the establishment clause,
No it doesn't. The Ten Commandments are not a religion in and of
themselves, and an inanimate chunk of rock does not an establishment
make.
It doesn't establish a religion,
It doesn't respect one, either.
but it does respect an establishemnt
Really, which one?
Judge Moore's stated purpose was to promote Christianity.
So? There are lots of forms of Christianity, and even the Jews you're
so worried about believe in the Ten Commandments.
The founders certainly "promoted" religion, apparently they believed
the state had the right to free exercise. Promoting religion is not
illegal.
"'We are a religious people who institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being. When the state encourages religious authorities. . . it follows
the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature
of our people. . . . To hold that it may not would be to find in the
Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous
indifference to religious group. That would be preferring those who
believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . .[W]e cannot
read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to
religion.' (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)).
"Finally, the Constitutional Framers understood that government
encouragement of religion was not equal to the establishment of
religion; that, as George Washington said, "religion and morality were
indispensable supports" to political prosperity.(George Washington,
Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . .
Preparatory to His Declination (1796)). Indeed, on the day the First
Amendment was passed by the Congress in 1789, Washington accepted
Congress' charge to proclaim a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer,
to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and
signal favors of Almighty God." As Chief Justice Rehnquist opined in
the Jaffree case, "History must judge whether it was the Father of our
country in 1789, or. . . the Court . . . which has strayed from the
meaning of the Establishment Clause." (Jaffree at 113-114, Rehnquist,
J. (dissenting))."
From http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall98/original.html
You ought to look up what the founders meant by "establishment."
You'd see that they didn't believe in the federal government promoting
one denomination of Christianity over the other; this did not stop
them from promoting pure Christianity in general, as evidenced by
their willingness to disseminate copies of the Bible and more-or-less
fund the printing of the same when the war and lack of printing
presses caused a Bible shortage.
We are happy to know you think the government should endorse
Christianity (just so long as they don't endorse one sect over another).
The founders thought that the government should endorse general "pure"
Christianity--and they did. I'm sure you must believe you are ever so
much smarter than they were.
Screw the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Let them be second-class
citizens.
WTF are you talking about???
Ask a few Jews, Muslims and Buddhists how they feel as citizens when
the government endorses Christianity.
Why should anyone care "how they feel?" Our traditions and laws are
not contingent on the sensibilities of foreigners. If they don't like
it, they may feel free to move back to Iran (where, incidentally, no
one cares how Christians feel--and if the Christians express dissent
or oppression, they are slaughtered).
http://www.persecution.com/
PS: The US has long been an ally of Israel and Judaism, for good
reason, of course.
No one's free exercise has been disturbed, and Muslims etc are still
allowed to have jobs, live here, and are subject to and protected by
the laws--and may even participate in the political process. So no
one has been made another class of citizen. In fact, having a
Christian heritage is what makes this country as free as it is, or so
the founders thought.
Yet, you also argue that
Alabama is bound by the free exercise and free speech clauses.
Not necessarily. The point is moot. It would be like arguing that
maybe someday leftists won't hate America, or that pigs will grow
wings and fly. Arguing implausable scenarios like state religions and
flying pigs is an exercise in stupidity. That's why I'm not going to
do it anymore.
You don't want to do it because it exposes your faulty logic.
Does it matter when one's logic is faulty when arguing a scenario that
has no chance of ever occuring???
Given the license, the states will do what you think has no chance of
ever occurring.
Given the nature of Americans in general, and their willingness to
stick a block of granite in a closet to prevent someone from seeing
the Ten Commandments, I'm not really sure what it is you are afraid of
occuring.
The states are comprised of We the People. It's apparent that your
fellow citizens scare the ***** out of you.
For the record, do you think Alabama should have the Constitutional
right to deny Jews from practcing their religion? Yes or No?
Yes. And to a certain extent, they might. Some Jews still practice
animal sacrifice as part of their religion. The state might regulate
the slaughter of animals as it sees fit to avoid animal abuse,
contaminations, etc.
If the Jews of that state have a problem with the laws, they may
change them at will or move to another state.
I want Alabama to do just about whatever it wants, and let the people
of that state decide what that is. I'm still not sure what part of
that idea of complete liberty you don't understand.
I guess that's a "Yes" to the above question.
You apparently have a hard time making value judgements.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
09 Sep 2003 07:07:42 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309081617.5ed3c68e@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309080906.562607ee@posting.google.com>...
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop Muslims from practicing
certain parts of their religion (Jihad, admonitions to kill infidels)?
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop witchcraft type religions
from killing animals and drinking the blood (laws against animal
cruelty, license to slaughter, disease control)?
Yes and yes because in those two examples Alabama has a compelling
state interest which supercedes the free exercise clause. Lacking a
compelling state interest (which is almost always the case), the First
Amendment prevails.
For the record, do you think Alabama should have the Constitutional
right to deny Jews from practcing their religion? Yes or No?
Yes. And to a certain extent, they might. Some Jews still practice
animal sacrifice as part of their religion. The state might regulate
the slaughter of animals as it sees fit to avoid animal abuse,
contaminations, etc.
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
Anybody here besides Sneechres believe that is what America stands
for?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
09 Sep 2003 02:21:33 PM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309090407.e988a1a@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309081617.5ed3c68e@posting.google.com>...
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309080906.562607ee@posting.google.com>...
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop Muslims from practicing
certain parts of their religion (Jihad, admonitions to kill infidels)?
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop witchcraft type religions
from killing animals and drinking the blood (laws against animal
cruelty, license to slaughter, disease control)?
Yes and yes because in those two examples Alabama has a compelling
state interest which supercedes the free exercise clause.
So we see, as I said, "freedoms" and "rights" are not absolute.
It comes down to the boring details. A state can fabricate interests
if it wants to (respecting certain sect = common good), and a court
may or may not even choose to take the case, let alone rule on it.
The state decides statutes to begin with, not the courts and not the
fedgov.
In the case of Roy Moore, the SCOTUS for obvious reasons refused to
hear it. Considering that they have the 10C on the walls there also,
it is well that they didn't.
For the record, do you think Alabama should have the Constitutional
right to deny Jews from practcing their religion? Yes or No?
Yes. And to a certain extent, they might. Some Jews still practice
animal sacrifice as part of their religion. The state might regulate
the slaughter of animals as it sees fit to avoid animal abuse,
contaminations, etc.
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
A small price to pay to distribute power to a local level instead of a
federal level.
Each state has its own Constitution, which is decided by We the People
of the states. Go and look them up online if you're afraid someone in
some state might have had their religious freedom revoked.
By giving the federal government the power over the states, you're
giving them the power to uphold not only justice, but corruption.
This, of course, would never occur to someone who's thoughts run about
as deep as a cookie sheet.
Basically, what part of "WE THE PEOPLE" don't you understand?
The states = the people. Remember that.
Anybody here besides Sneechres believe that is what America stands
for?
It's a good thing the laws are not left up to individuals like
yourself--that is, those who think the law is contingent upon the
popular opinion of his friends--who, incidentally, love the federal
government and fear all religion (despite your silly posturing).
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church RecognizesSame-Sex Marriage! |
09 Sep 2003 05:38:32 PM |
|
|
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309090407.e988a1a@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309081617.5ed3c68e@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309080906.562607ee@posting.google.com>...
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop Muslims from practicing
certain parts of their religion (Jihad, admonitions to kill infidels)?
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop witchcraft type religions
from killing animals and drinking the blood (laws against animal
cruelty, license to slaughter, disease control)?
Yes and yes because in those two examples Alabama has a compelling
state interest which supercedes the free exercise clause.
So we see, as I said, "freedoms" and "rights" are not absolute.
It comes down to the boring details. A state can fabricate interests
if it wants to (respecting certain sect = common good), and a court
may or may not even choose to take the case, let alone rule on it.
The state decides statutes to begin with, not the courts and not the
fedgov.
We have common ground. A state decides what statutes to enact (I
agree). The details determine whether the statute constitutes a
compelling state interest and hence whether it is constitutional (I agree).
But, who gets to pass judgement on those boring details?
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
A small price to pay to distribute power to a local level instead of a
federal level.
Basically, what part of "WE THE PEOPLE" don't you understand?
The part where the majority (people) deprives the minority of their
civil rights under The First Amendment. Oh, I forgot. The minority
losing their civil rights is "a small price".
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
09 Sep 2003 09:57:30 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5E5666.8050708@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309090407.e988a1a@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309081617.5ed3c68e@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309080906.562607ee@posting.google.com>...
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop Muslims from practicing
certain parts of their religion (Jihad, admonitions to kill infidels)?
Do you think Alabama has the right to stop witchcraft type religions
from killing animals and drinking the blood (laws against animal
cruelty, license to slaughter, disease control)?
Yes and yes because in those two examples Alabama has a compelling
state interest which supercedes the free exercise clause.
So we see, as I said, "freedoms" and "rights" are not absolute.
It comes down to the boring details. A state can fabricate interests
if it wants to (respecting certain sect = common good), and a court
may or may not even choose to take the case, let alone rule on it.
The state decides statutes to begin with, not the courts and not the
fedgov.
We have common ground.
I don't think so.
A state decides what statutes to enact (I
agree). The details determine whether the statute constitutes a
compelling state interest and hence whether it is constitutional (I agree).
I disagree that the federal government should have that much power
over the states--and surprise, they aren't supposed to (at least, not
according to my copies of the Constitution). And if you were so
worried about governmental power, you'd agree. On the one hand you
***** about the "marjority taking away people's rights" but have no
problem when it's the federal government that has all the power to do
so, which is infinitely harder for We the People to reverse.
But, who gets to pass judgement on those boring details?
The people of the states should. As I have been saying all along.
That's basically what the tenth amendment says, too. I cannot put my
finger on the part of law anywhere in American history (save recent
incorrect case law) that says the federal government may make laws for
the states, or that the states are accountable to the federal
government. That establishes the most tyrannical precedent that the
federal government is the final arbiter over state laws. It renders
the idea of having state constitutions null and void. State
sovereignty flies out the window. You seem to think the Founders
didn't see that far ahead. They did, however.
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
A small price to pay to distribute power to a local level instead of a
federal level.
Basically, what part of "WE THE PEOPLE" don't you understand?
The part where the majority (people) deprives the minority of their
civil rights under The First Amendment.
Well, that's the way the founders did it. And we see what a freefall
the country was in at that time regarding religious worship.
We the people decide what rights are--which is a whole lot better than
nine unelected leftists deciding for us. It's called democracy.
Remember that when you cry "America is a democracy" as I'd bet my next
paycheck you have.
Oh, I forgot. The minority
losing their civil rights is "a small price".
Who has lost their rights? Have you bothered to read any state
constitutions?
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
10 Sep 2003 10:21:44 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309091857.c059746@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5E5666.8050708@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309090407.e988a1a@posting.google.com>...
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
A small price to pay to distribute power to a local level instead of a
federal level.
Basically, what part of "WE THE PEOPLE" don't you understand?
The part where the majority (people) deprives the minority of their
civil rights under The First Amendment.
We the people decide what rights are--which is a whole lot better than
nine unelected leftists deciding for us. It's called democracy.
Remember that when you cry "America is a democracy" as I'd bet my next
paycheck you have.
America is a liberal democracy (majority rule, minority rights). A
democracy with only majority rule does not have a Bill of Rights.
Majority rules (the states have their sovereignity) almost all of the
time. But not when it comes to The Bill of Rights.
You think The Bill of Rights is less important than States Rights.
Fortunately, Abe Lincoln helped this nation decide that issue.
Oh, I forgot. The minority
losing their civil rights is "a small price".
Who has lost their rights? Have you bothered to read any state
constitutions?
If not for The Bill of Rights being applied to the states, all of
these folks would have lost their civil rights. But who cares about
them? They are just the minority.
Freedom of Speech - Gitlow v New York - 268 US 652 (1925), Fiske v
Kansas - 274 US 380 (1927)
Freedom of Press - Near v Minnesota - 283 US 697 (1931)
Freedom of Assembly - Dejong v Oregon - 299 US 353 (1937)
Free Exercise of Religion - Cantrell v Connecticut - 310 US 296 (1940)
Ban on Religious Establishment - Everson v Board of Education - 330 US
1 (1947)
Freedom of Association - NAACP v Alabama - 357 US 449 (1958)
Unreasonable Search/Seizure - Wolf v Colorado - 418 US 25 (1949)
Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v Ohio - 367 US 643 (1961)
Self Incrimination - Malloy v Hogan - 378 US 1 (1964)
Double Jeopardy - Benton v Maryland 395 US 784 (1969)
Assistance of Counsel in Capital Case - Peterson v City of Greenville
- 373 US 244 (1963)
Right to Public Trial - Oliver, in Re - 333 US 257 (1948)
Assistance of Counsel in all Felony Cases - Gideon v Wainwright - 372
US 335 (1963)
Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses - Pointer v Texas - 380 US 40
(1965)
Right to Impartial Jury - Parker v Gladden - 385 US 363 (1966)
Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses - Washington v Texas -
388 US 14 (1967)
Right to a Speedy Trial - Klopfer v N Carolina - 386 US 213 (1967)
Right to Jury in Nonpetty Criminal Cases - Duncan v Louisiana - 391 US
145 (1968)
Right to Counsel in Imprisonable Misdemeanor - Argersinger v Hamlin -
407 US 25 (1972)
Right to Notice of Accusation - Rabe v Washington - 405 US 313 (1972)
Right to Unamimous Verdict if Only Six Jurors - Burch v Louisiana -
441 US 130 (1979)
Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Robinson v California 370 US
660 (1962)
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
11 Sep 2003 09:10:30 PM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309100721.5ddbf6af@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309091857.c059746@posting.google.com>...
Josh Rosenbluth <joshrosenbluth@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F5E5666.8050708@att.net>...
Sneechres wrote:
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309090407.e988a1a@posting.google.com>...
There you have the essentials of the debate. The crazies believe that
the First Amendment does not apply to the states, and the states have
the unfettered right (for any reason at all) to deny people their free
exercise of religion.
A small price to pay to distribute power to a local level instead of a
federal level.
Basically, what part of "WE THE PEOPLE" don't you understand?
The part where the majority (people) deprives the minority of their
civil rights under The First Amendment.
We the people decide what rights are--which is a whole lot better than
nine unelected leftists deciding for us. It's called democracy.
Remember that when you cry "America is a democracy" as I'd bet my next
paycheck you have.
America is a liberal democracy (majority rule, minority rights).
Does not follow.
The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic, ie, rule of law.
That means the federal government is limited by the Constitution. The
states are representative democracy/constitutional republics in and of
themselves, limited by their individual constitutions.
The law is decided by We the People, and is changed if necessary by We
the People.
See de Tocqueville's Democracy in America ch 16
CAUSES WHICH MITIGATE THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES
ABSENCE OF CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION. The national majority does not
pretend to do everything--Is obliged to employ the town and county
magistrates to execute its sovereign will.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch16.htm
There's also a chapter on the positive sovereignty of local
governments.
A
democracy with only majority rule does not have a Bill of Rights.
Yes it does, but since we aren't, it's moot.
The things NOT enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as well as
representatives, are voted on in a democratic fashion. However, that
vote may be overturned by We the People as well.
You think The Bill of Rights is less important than States Rights.
The Bill of Rights upholds states rights (supposedly). For reasons
I've explained to you no fewer than a half a dozen times, the states
should have more power than the federal government...which isn't
saying much.
Try reading the individual states' constitutions.
Fortunately, Abe Lincoln helped this nation decide that issue.
Abe Lincoln didn't "help the nation decide" anything. States rights
had already been decided. As a product of the public school, you've
probably regarded him as some kind of hero.
The southern states had every right to secede. Three hundred thousand
men died because of Lincoln's disregard of the rule of law.
Going back to the first government usurpation of the Constitution
doesn't help your case any.
Oh, I forgot. The minority
losing their civil rights is "a small price".
Who has lost their rights? Have you bothered to read any state
constitutions?
If not for The Bill of Rights being applied to the states, all of
these folks would have lost their civil rights.
No, they wouldn't. It apparently STILL hasn't occured to you, after
arguing the point for over a week (or, rather, ignoring my points to
that effect), that the people of said states have the power to change
the constitutions and laws of their state. Why is that so difficult
for you to understand? California is doing it right now, as a matter
of fact. This recall would overturn the "majority" election of a
Democrat to the Governor's office.
I know it's because you want to trade the people's ability to decide
for themselves for federal power--to let the laws be decided by nine
judges whom the people didn't even get the privelege of electing. But
who cares about what the people of a state want?
People who argue to give more power to federal branches can never hope
to win a debate like this.
But who cares about
them?
Apparently not you, since you're more than happy to let their "rights"
be decided by nine federal unelected judges, rather than allowing them
to at least be able to vote.
They are just the minority.
I thought we'd been through this caselaw thing. You still just don't
fricking get it, do you.
Freedom of Speech - Gitlow v New York - 268 US 652 (1925),
Leave it to people like you to stand up for socialists and people who
advocate violence (a state interest if there ever was one)--whilst
expressing horror at the prospect that someone might be exposed to
religion. That's how I know you really don't care about the minority,
or people, or whoever you pretend to be defending.
You're a fake and a joke. And since you've decided that you're not
going to respond to relevant points, I won't try to argue them with
you anymore.
<clip same ol>
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
12 Sep 2003 01:25:52 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309111810.734a455c@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309100721.5ddbf6af@posting.google.com>...
You think The Bill of Rights is less important than States Rights.
The Bill of Rights upholds states rights (supposedly).
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights. These are inherent
rights available to everyone. They are the essence of liberty.
But in your world these are "cafeteria-style" rights. Each state can
decide which ones they want to provide. Some states will choose to
honor freedom of religion, some will not. Some will provide for trial
by jury. Others will not. The most basic of rights will vary from
state to state. That's a perversion of liberty.
Fortunately, Abe Lincoln helped this nation decide that issue.
Abe Lincoln didn't "help the nation decide" anything. States rights
had already been decided. As a product of the public school, you've
probably regarded him as some kind of hero.
The southern states had every right to secede. Three hundred thousand
men died because of Lincoln's disregard of the rule of law.
What else do you need to know. The wingnuts hate Lincoln. They
really do wish The Confederacy won. Slavery? No problem. Jim Crow?
Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are State Rights heroes too.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
13 Sep 2003 02:37:12 AM |
|
|
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309112225.5faadd6d@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309111810.734a455c@posting.google.com>...
(Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309100721.5ddbf6af@posting.google.com>...
You think The Bill of Rights is less important than States Rights.
The Bill of Rights upholds states rights (supposedly).
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights.
The tenth amendment states:
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.
If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, the state decides.
These are inherent
rights available to everyone.
What "rights" are you talking about?
They are the essence of liberty.
What is the "essence of liberty?"
But in your world these are "cafeteria-style" rights. Each state can
decide which ones they want to provide.
As long as a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution,
that is correct.
Some states will choose to
honor freedom of religion, some will not.
That's how things worked for over one hundred and seventy years in
this country. No rational explanation has been given for why it was
changed.
Some will provide for trial
by jury. Others will not.
Trial by jury is enumerated in the Constitution as a constitutional
right under the sixth amendment. So the states would not abridge it.
The most basic of rights will vary from
state to state.
What's not in the Constitution would vary from state to state. And
that's okay. It gives the people of this country a vast choice on
where they want to live, how they want their communities to be, etc.
The problem is that what you view as "rights" have not ever really
been considered as such historically. So this is about your personal
preferences, not the law.
That's a perversion of liberty.
You don't have the foggiest idea what liberty is. Which is why you're
willing to let said liberty be abridged by five people who aren't
accountable to anyone.
Fortunately, Abe Lincoln helped this nation decide that issue.
Abe Lincoln didn't "help the nation decide" anything. States rights
had already been decided. As a product of the public school, you've
probably regarded him as some kind of hero.
The southern states had every right to secede. Three hundred thousand
men died because of Lincoln's disregard of the rule of law.
What else do you need to know. The wingnuts hate Lincoln.
Strawman.
No one said they "hated Lincoln" let alone "wingnuts" (gotta love it
when big government totalitarians call other people crazy).
However, he wasn't the god you make him out to be. He was a good man
who meant well but did some really bad things.
They
really do wish The Confederacy won.
I wish a war had not been necessary. And if the federal government
had minded its own business, a lot of people would not have had to die
for an institution that was on its way out anyway.
Slavery? No problem. Jim Crow?
You mean those ideas supported by your beloved Supreme Court?
Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are State Rights heroes too.
Strom Thurmond was a Southern Democrat at one time, he only became a
Republican later. George Wallace was also a Southern Democrat.
I'd bet my next paycheck you're a Democrat. You know, the party that
overwhelmingly voted against the civil rights act.
You hypocrites can't fool anyone.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "thisisme" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
13 Sep 2003 10:24:58 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309122337.a66915c@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309112225.5faadd6d@posting.google.com>...
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0309111810.734a455c@posting.google.com>...
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote in message news:<d735d9de.0309100721.5ddbf6af@posting.google.com>...
You think The Bill of Rights is less important than States Rights.
The Bill of Rights upholds states rights (supposedly).
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights.
The tenth amendment states:
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.
If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, the state decides.
These are inherent
rights available to everyone.
What "rights" are you talking about?
They are the essence of liberty.
What is the "essence of liberty?"
But in your world these are "cafeteria-style" rights. Each state can
decide which ones they want to provide.
As long as a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution,
that is correct.
Some states will choose to
honor freedom of religion, some will not.
That's how things worked for over one hundred and seventy years in
this country. No rational explanation has been given for why it was
changed.
Some will provide for trial
by jury. Others will not.
Trial by jury is enumerated in the Constitution as a constitutional
right under the sixth amendment. So the states would not abridge it.
The most basic of rights will vary from
state to state.
What's not in the Constitution would vary from state to state. And
that's okay. It gives the people of this country a vast choice on
where they want to live, how they want their communities to be, etc.
The problem is that what you view as "rights" have not ever really
been considered as such historically. So this is about your personal
preferences, not the law.
That's a perversion of liberty.
You don't have the foggiest idea what liberty is. Which is why you're
willing to let said liberty be abridged by five people who aren't
accountable to anyone.
Fortunately, Abe Lincoln helped this nation decide that issue.
Abe Lincoln didn't "help the nation decide" anything. States rights
had already been decided. As a product of the public school, you've
probably regarded him as some kind of hero.
The southern states had every right to secede. Three hundred thousand
men died because of Lincoln's disregard of the rule of law.
What else do you need to know. The wingnuts hate Lincoln.
Strawman.
No one said they "hated Lincoln" let alone "wingnuts" (gotta love it
when big government totalitarians call other people crazy).
However, he wasn't the god you make him out to be. He was a good man
who meant well but did some really bad things.
They
really do wish The Confederacy won.
I wish a war had not been necessary. And if the federal government
had minded its own business, a lot of people would not have had to die
for an institution that was on its way out anyway.
Slavery? No problem. Jim Crow?
You mean those ideas supported by your beloved Supreme Court?
Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are State Rights heroes too.
Strom Thurmond was a Southern Democrat at one time, he only became a
Republican later. George Wallace was also a Southern Democrat.
I'd bet my next paycheck you're a Democrat. You know, the party that
overwhelmingly voted against the civil rights act.
You hypocrites can't fool anyone.
They might be more adept at it if they'd at least bother to learn some
history. Sheesh, it is absolutely frightening that some of these
people are eligible to vote. Of course, a lot of them can't follow
directions and punch their ballots correctly so their votes become
moot. But still..... Me thinks we should have some reqirements for
voting.....perhaps similar to what they require for becoming a
naturalized citizen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
13 Sep 2003 03:11:21 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights.
The tenth amendment states:
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.
If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, the state decides.
What a stupid statement. The enumerations of RIGHTS has nothing to do
with POWERS delegated to the states. States have no rights. People
have rights.
The states are not given any power to violate the rights of people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
14 Sep 2003 02:16:25 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<bjvtl9$dj$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights.
The tenth amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.
If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, the state decides.
What a stupid statement.
Merely quoting the Constitution. Seems you just don't like it.
The enumerations of RIGHTS has nothing to do
with POWERS delegated to the states.
The Bill of Rights has enumerated what are rights that no government
can touch. However, that which is NOT enumerated in the BOR becomes a
state issue.
States have no rights.
That is incorrect.
People
have rights.
Yes, they do. Both people and states have certain rights. What they
are and how they relate are decided by the state and federal
constitutions.
The states are not given any power to violate the rights of people.
No one said they did. But the states are given the power to decide
what is meant by "rights" beyond what is enumerated in the BOR.
Read the state constitutions. You'll see what I mean.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ANOTHER Rapid-Fire VICTORY Over Bigotry!! Episcopal Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage! |
14 Sep 2003 04:52:17 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<bjvtl9$dj$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth)
The Bill of Rights upholds individual rights.
The tenth amendment states:
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.
If it's not enumerated in the Constitution, the state decides.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
