| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"buckeye" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2008 05:23:33 AM |
| Object: |
14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blocked/
01.10.08
Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune
http://friendlyatheist.com/
The court decision
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/Gettleman071115.pdf
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 07:01:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:51:22 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<l9ednellwpM2ghHanZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
When a court reads into a law novel meaning that was never intended by
those two created that law the court is, in effect, creating a new law
where none existed before. You can call it anything you like but the
effect is the same.
Do you think the Taney court was just "adjudicating" when the decided
Dred Scott?
Pretty much. The Constitution was terrible for slaves. Taney just had to
take it to its logical limit.
No, Taney decided that the "property," Dred Scott, was taken from its
owner without due process of law. Taney decided, for reasons known to
himself only, that the law stating that people could not be property in
Illinois (ironic, eh?) didn't really count as law, and provided no
justification for doing so. He, in effect, suspended the Illinois law
in a manner clearly in conflict with the intent of those who created it.
Or in other words, he, for all intents an purposes, amended the
Illinois (and Wisconsin) anti-slave law by creating a loophole.
It was a bit more subtle than that and it relied on a constitutional
requirement that states recognize each other's laws. Still, Taney's
argument is the best reason not to buy promises about strict
construction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 09:32:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:02:22 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnRmvWuoyXxfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
3921 Dead wrote:
Questioning the purpose of a law is CENTRAL to what the courts do.
Only by courts that want to exceed their authority and legislate.
utter right wing babble.
Look up Marbury vs Madison, and then tell me what use a court system
is if they cannot question the purpose of a law.
Babble to those who are quite comfortable with achieving political ends
by any means. I don't think the courts should be legislating, even if I
agree with moral aspects of the decision.
So, aside from the really slick trick in Marbury of basically forcing
the executive not to do what he didn't want to do anyway, did you notice
that the Madison in Marbury was the primary drafter of the Constitution?
Do you think that Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would
have put up with the decision in Marbury if they thought it was wrong?
Frankly, I think that Marbury was brilliant, not only because of the
political move of the decision which was to tell Jefferson that it was
unconstitutional to do what Jefferson didn't want to do anyway and
Marshall hadn't gotten around to doing.
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws. The fact that he referred to the
Constitution rather than general common law was, in a way, a limitation
on the courts in this country. The Constitution is supreme over the
courts, the executive and the congress. The courts are but the last
bulwark against the vicissitudes of irresponsible public opinion. That
was why the federal judiciary were given life appointments.
You need to make a better case for violation of the first beyond merely
claiming it is so.
No I don't. The court already did that.
Cite the passage from the decision where the court found the law in
violation of the amendment (and prognostication doesn't count).
It bases three quarters of its findings on the Establishment Clause.
Did you actually read the decision?
I didn't ask you what if based it's finding (the injunction) on. I
asked you to cite the passage where the law was **found**
unconstitutional. Try again.
That is an exaggeration. The MOS is not "religious in nature." It is a
moment of making no sound and stillness. What individuals do with that
moment is up to them.
Certainly it is. Apply the Lemon test: what secular purpose is served
by this wasteful "moment".
As I've said before on this thread, the claimed purpose was to ensure
that religions freedom was supported in the schools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 05:07:37 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws.
....with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership. They have the
final say in any and all matters and not the people. Yep, that's just
what the founding fathers had in mind...
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative. If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:41:27 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws.
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
Not hardly. Those judges have no enforcement power, for one thing.
For another, they can only rule on cases that they hear
They have the final say in any and all matters
in any and all matters brought to them. But that is what the
constitution calls for.
and not the people.
The people have the power to overrule the court by constitutional
amendment.
Yep, that's just what the founding fathers had in mind...
Actually, it is. The courts are the weakest of the three branches.
They can only decide the cases that are brought to them, and they are
heavily bound by the tradition of precedent.
The courts must be bound by something.
Precedent and procedure.
The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative. If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Nonsense. The check on their authority are amendment and impeachment,
and in criminal cases, pardon, along with their inability to enforce
their decisions. None of these has been needed very often.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
Actually, if the courts were bound by "original intent", then that
would be a recipe of totally nonresponsive government, as the courts
would have to rule as if the conditions of 1787 still prevailed, no
matter what "we the people" wanted. As it is, the courts have some
limited capability to be responsive, because they are obliged to make
rulings that are enforceable, and that won't be overturned by the
other two branches of government acting within their powers.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 05:31:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:07:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<yY6dnba15ZKndhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws.
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
They have the
final say in any and all matters and not the people. Yep, that's just
what the founding fathers had in mind...
They were there when the first constitutional case came up. They
approved it.
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 08:06:09 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
And what if they choose a definition of a passage in the constitutional
that no one has ever used --- or even intended to have used -- before?
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
Don't presume to tell me what I "want." You're a poor mind reader.
In your opinion, what is the check on judicial authority?
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
You're not thinking this through. If you give the courts the authority
to ignore the intent of the legislature regarding text existing in the
in the Constitution as it stands today, why would the court then feel
bound by the intent or text of any new amendments?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 10:20:24 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
And what if they choose a definition of a passage in the constitutional
that no one has ever used --- or even intended to have used -- before?
Then they do.
If enough people think that they are wrong, then one of the checks and
balances will be called into play, and it will be nullified.
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
Don't presume to tell me what I "want." You're a poor mind reader.
In your opinion, what is the check on judicial authority?
1) the lack of ability to enforce their decisions
2) the impeachment power
3) limits on jurisdiction, so that they only have authority over cases
that are actually brought to them.
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
You're not thinking this through. If you give the courts the authority
to ignore the intent of the legislature regarding text existing in the
in the Constitution as it stands today, why would the court then feel
bound by the intent or text of any new amendments?
Rather simple. If the Congress thinks that they are not acting
properly, they will be impeached.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 06:49:42 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
In your opinion, what is the check on judicial authority?
1) the lack of ability to enforce their decisions
2) the impeachment power
3) limits on jurisdiction, so that they only have authority over cases
that are actually brought to them.
Also, the voters can elect a President (and a Senate) that will appoint
(and confirm) judges that conform to whatever the voters think is proper
judicial authority. Ironically, those who complain the loudest about an
unrestrained judiciary (*) are undermining their own argument with their
very words which rally voters and act as a check.
(*) Given the broad, sweeping, language in the Constitution (e.g.,
"respecting an establishment of religion"), I find the underlying
argument that judges are "legislative from the bench" weak (in addition
to the argument that judges are unrestrained per above).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 09:55:28 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
And what if they choose a definition of a passage in the constitutional
that no one has ever used --- or even intended to have used -- before?
Then they do.
If enough people think that they are wrong, then one of the checks and
balances will be called into play, and it will be nullified.
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
Don't presume to tell me what I "want." You're a poor mind reader.
In your opinion, what is the check on judicial authority?
1) the lack of ability to enforce their decisions
2) the impeachment power
3) limits on jurisdiction, so that they only have authority over cases
that are actually brought to them.
Damn, you are patient, stressing the point over and over again. Do you
work with kindergarden children? I think you will need to resort to
audio-visual aids lest your points be lost.
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
You're not thinking this through. If you give the courts the authority
to ignore the intent of the legislature regarding text existing in the
in the Constitution as it stands today, why would the court then feel
bound by the intent or text of any new amendments?
Rather simple. If the Congress thinks that they are not acting
properly, they will be impeached.
lojbab
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 07:02:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:06:09 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<z-ednR8lCoyMiBHanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
And what if they choose a definition of a passage in the constitutional
that no one has ever used --- or even intended to have used -- before?
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
Don't presume to tell me what I "want." You're a poor mind reader.
In your opinion, what is the check on judicial authority?
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by
original intent then the the only check on their authority is death.
Hardly a recipe for responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
You're not thinking this through. If you give the courts the authority
to ignore the intent of the legislature regarding text existing in the
in the Constitution as it stands today, why would the court then feel
bound by the intent or text of any new amendments?
The courts are bound by the words of the statute or the constitution.
Only if a fair question arises about what those words mean does the
intent matter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:01:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:31:50 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:07:37 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<yY6dnba15ZKndhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws.
...with the inevitable consequence that we are government of, for, and
by a committee of nine judges with lifetime membership.
No. The only thing a court can do is say "no, you cannot pass laws that
violate our constitution or our traditions". They do not rule. Ever.
Wrong. The Judicial branch operates almost solely based upon precedent
allowing a slow mission creep. Or rapid when you get idealists put into
office.
They have the
final say in any and all matters and not the people. Yep, that's just
what the founding fathers had in mind...
They were there when the first constitutional case came up. They
approved it.
The founding fathers did not see what the beast that our judiciary has
evolved into. They did anticipate devolution but tried their best to
construct a system that would last beyond theirselves and succeeded
admirably however that design has failed after 200+ years of onslaught by
lawyers and special interests.
The courts must be bound by something. The process of checks and
balances that is at the foundation of our republic applies (or should)
to all branches of the government, not just the Executive and
Legislative.
What a mockery you try to make of checks and balances. You want courts
to be powerless.
Why not just state what you believe rather than putting words into others
mouths? He said no such thing
If the courts, particularly SCOTUS, are not bound by original intent
then the the only check on their authority is death. Hardly a recipe for
responsive government.
The Congress and states can pass any amendment they want. There is
always a way to overrule the Supreme Court. Your claim about original
intent is silliness.
An amendment is not necessary to obey the Constitution or Bill of Rights,
only to honor one's oath of office. When those sworn violate their oaths
we have reached a point in our nation's history of extreme danger. When
we can no longer depend, or even force, our "representatives" to obey then
the stage is set for revolution.
That is never a good thing.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 10:21:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:32:10 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:02:22 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnRmvWuoyXxfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
3921 Dead wrote:
Questioning the purpose of a law is CENTRAL to what the courts do.
Only by courts that want to exceed their authority and legislate.
utter right wing babble.
Look up Marbury vs Madison, and then tell me what use a court system
is if they cannot question the purpose of a law.
Babble to those who are quite comfortable with achieving political ends
by any means. I don't think the courts should be legislating, even if I
agree with moral aspects of the decision.
So, aside from the really slick trick in Marbury of basically forcing
the executive not to do what he didn't want to do anyway, did you notice
that the Madison in Marbury was the primary drafter of the Constitution?
Do you think that Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would
have put up with the decision in Marbury if they thought it was wrong?
Frankly, I think that Marbury was brilliant, not only because of the
political move of the decision which was to tell Jefferson that it was
unconstitutional to do what Jefferson didn't want to do anyway and
Marshall hadn't gotten around to doing.
Still, all Marshall did was to reinforce a long-standing common law idea
that courts could nullify laws. The fact that he referred to the
Constitution rather than general common law was, in a way, a limitation
on the courts in this country. The Constitution is supreme over the
courts, the executive and the congress. The courts are but the last
bulwark against the vicissitudes of irresponsible public opinion. That
was why the federal judiciary were given life appointments.
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
In this instance, It would be amusing to see what "LibertySR" thinks
the legislation is.
You need to make a better case for violation of the first beyond merely
claiming it is so.
No I don't. The court already did that.
Cite the passage from the decision where the court found the law in
violation of the amendment (and prognostication doesn't count).
It bases three quarters of its findings on the Establishment Clause.
Did you actually read the decision?
I didn't ask you what if based it's finding (the injunction) on. I
asked you to cite the passage where the law was **found**
unconstitutional. Try again.
That is an exaggeration. The MOS is not "religious in nature." It is a
moment of making no sound and stillness. What individuals do with that
moment is up to them.
Certainly it is. Apply the Lemon test: what secular purpose is served
by this wasteful "moment".
As I've said before on this thread, the claimed purpose was to ensure
that religions freedom was supported in the schools.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 05:08:56 PM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate,
what would you call it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:01:34 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:yY6dnbG15ZIVdhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to overstep
its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you
call it?
A court cannot exceed its authority --- they are the final arbiters.
But that authority is not absolute. A remedy for a legislature pained by a
constitutional ruling is to amend the constitution, the one act of a
legislature not vetted by a court.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 08:58:52 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:yY6dnbG15ZIVdhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to overstep
its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you
call it?
A court cannot exceed its authority --- they are the final arbiters.
But that authority is not absolute. A remedy for a legislature pained by a
constitutional ruling is to amend the constitution, the one act of a
legislature not vetted by a court.
If they're the "final arbiters," what's to prevent them from arbitrating
your new amendment in a manner that makes it effectively meaningless,
i.e. ignoring it?
By declaring them the "final arbiters," you're giving them absolute
power whether you realize it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 10:12:02 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:yY6dnbG15ZIVdhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to overstep
its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you
call it?
A court cannot exceed its authority --- they are the final arbiters.
But that authority is not absolute. A remedy for a legislature pained by a
constitutional ruling is to amend the constitution, the one act of a
legislature not vetted by a court.
If they're the "final arbiters," what's to prevent them from arbitrating
your new amendment in a manner that makes it effectively meaningless,
i.e. ignoring it?
By declaring them the "final arbiters," you're giving them absolute
power whether you realize it or not.
No. You are giving them absolute authority. They have no actual
power. And the authority can be taken away from any who abuse it
through the power of impeachment.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 07:21:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:58:52 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<G-adnRuPL_nwvBHanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@comcast.com>:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:yY6dnbG15ZIVdhbanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to overstep
its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you
call it?
A court cannot exceed its authority --- they are the final arbiters.
But that authority is not absolute. A remedy for a legislature pained by a
constitutional ruling is to amend the constitution, the one act of a
legislature not vetted by a court.
If they're the "final arbiters," what's to prevent them from arbitrating
your new amendment in a manner that makes it effectively meaningless,
i.e. ignoring it?
By declaring them the "final arbiters," you're giving them absolute
power whether you realize it or not.
You are the one who exaggerates to undermine the courts because you
don't want our Constitution to protect us. Fine, but don't make excuses,
just tell us that you want a theocracy, that you want to destroy our
civil liberties. Don't lie to us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:32:42 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. Too many checks and balances
along the way. Appeals courts to handle errors in the lower courts.
Multiple justices in the appellate courts serve to prevent a lone wolf
going too far, each justice of selected and subject to Congressional
scrutiny. Multiple appellate levels, and the top court only gets to
make a decision if someone is willing to appeal that high, and if 4
justices think that there is a case worth hearing. And then it takes
a majority of the court to get a decision.
If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you call it?
If severe enough, "impeachable". But I haven't heard of many such
cases.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 09:05:05 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. Too many checks and balances
along the way. Appeals courts to handle errors in the lower courts.
Multiple justices in the appellate courts serve to prevent a lone wolf
going too far, each justice of selected and subject to Congressional
scrutiny. Multiple appellate levels, and the top court only gets to
make a decision if someone is willing to appeal that high, and if 4
justices think that there is a case worth hearing. And then it takes
a majority of the court to get a decision.
In the system you describe has no check on SCOTUS. You're making them
rulers of the land above the other branches of government and the people.
If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you call it?
If severe enough, "impeachable". But I haven't heard of many such
cases.
Under what clause of the constitution would they be impeached? Making
the case that a decision isn't consistent with "good behavior" is
daunting to say the least since there will usually be an arm of the
political process that favors the decision even if it were an abuse of
judicial power (see Dred Scott).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 10:16:30 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. Too many checks and balances
along the way. Appeals courts to handle errors in the lower courts.
Multiple justices in the appellate courts serve to prevent a lone wolf
going too far, each justice of selected and subject to Congressional
scrutiny. Multiple appellate levels, and the top court only gets to
make a decision if someone is willing to appeal that high, and if 4
justices think that there is a case worth hearing. And then it takes
a majority of the court to get a decision.
In the system you describe has no check on SCOTUS. You're making them
rulers of the land above the other branches of government and the people.
No. They are arbiters of the land. They cannot "rule" anything,
because they have no enforcement power.
If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you call it?
If severe enough, "impeachable". But I haven't heard of many such
cases.
Under what clause of the constitution would they be impeached?
Congress can impeach anyone for anything it chooses to call "high
crimes and misdemeanors", a phrase which ONLY Congress has the power
to determine the meaning of.
Making the case that a decision isn't consistent with "good behavior" is
daunting to say the least since there will usually be an arm of the
political process that favors the decision even if it were an abuse of
judicial power (see Dred Scott).
If you can't get a 2/3 majority of Congress to agree that someone has
abused their authority, then they haven't. That is what the
Constitution says. Live with it, or try to get an amendment passed to
make it easier.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 07:22:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:05:05 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote in
<J56dnUwCoO1_vxHanZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@comcast.com>:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net> wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. Too many checks and balances
along the way. Appeals courts to handle errors in the lower courts.
Multiple justices in the appellate courts serve to prevent a lone wolf
going too far, each justice of selected and subject to Congressional
scrutiny. Multiple appellate levels, and the top court only gets to
make a decision if someone is willing to appeal that high, and if 4
justices think that there is a case worth hearing. And then it takes
a majority of the court to get a decision.
In the system you describe has no check on SCOTUS. You're making them
rulers of the land above the other branches of government and the people.
You keep inventing a parody of what we have. It has become clear to me
that you will not accept anything that does not allow "Christians" to
impose their will on others.
If not, and a court did exceed its mandate, what would you call it?
If severe enough, "impeachable". But I haven't heard of many such
cases.
Under what clause of the constitution would they be impeached? Making
the case that a decision isn't consistent with "good behavior" is
daunting to say the least since there will usually be an arm of the
political process that favors the decision even if it were an abuse of
judicial power (see Dred Scott).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 07:49:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:08:56 -0500, LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate,
what would you call it?
Bush vs. Gore.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 09:02:42 AM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:08:56 -0500, LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate,
what would you call it?
Bush vs. Gore.
I was rather hoping you would bring this one up. Do you think BvG was
"legislating from the bench?" i.e. creating new election law in Florida
to serve a desired outcome?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 12:20:33 PM |
|
|
LibertySR wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:08:56 -0500, LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate,
what would you call it?
Bush vs. Gore.
I was rather hoping you would bring this one up. Do you think BvG was
"legislating from the bench?" i.e. creating new election law in Florida
to serve a desired outcome?
It was a warped interpretation of the Equal Protection clause designed
to to produce a desired outcome for this one case, never to be used as a
legal principle ever again.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
19 Jan 2008 12:44:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:02:42 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:08:56 -0500, LibertySR <LibertySR@nospam.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
When they start claiming the courts are "legislating from the bench"
it's usually a pretty good sign that they've lost the debate.
From this are you implying that it is impossible for a court to
overstep its authority? If not, and a court did exceed its mandate,
what would you call it?
Bush vs. Gore.
I was rather hoping you would bring this one up. Do you think BvG was
"legislating from the bench?" i.e. creating new election law in Florida
to serve a desired outcome?
Yes, and I think the actions of the court were categorically illegal.
I'll leave it you to to determine why the Republican-dominated Senate
never impeached the bastards.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:34:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:16:59 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneivWuoW2hfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
3921 Dead wrote:
Questioning the purpose of a law is CENTRAL to what the courts do.
Only by courts that want to exceed their authority and legislate.
You need to make a better case for violation of the first beyond merely
claiming it is so.
No I don't. The court already did that.
Cite the passage from the decision where the court found the law in
violation of the amendment (and prognostication doesn't count).
But I WILL note one factor that the court didn't address. The court
specifies that no religious test shall ever be used for any office or
position of public trust in the united States. In other words, any
government office, at any level, may not use the religious beliefs of
any job candidate as a criterion for the position.
Now you have a position where a public school teacher -- a person in a
position of public trust under the united States-- is being forced to
conduct a morning ritual that the law now specifically says is
religious in nature.
That is an exaggeration. The MOS is not "religious in nature." It is a
moment of making no sound and stillness. What individuals do with that
moment is up to them.
The moment of silence is to school prayer as intelligent design is to
creationism, an attempt to dress a religious activity or claim in
secular clothing.
Of course, I don't understand why this problem even exists since Jesus
condemned such examples of hypocrisy:
Matthew 6:5-7
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:52:36 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
<snip>
That is an exaggeration. The MOS is not "religious in nature." It is a
moment of making no sound and stillness. What individuals do with that
moment is up to them.
The moment of silence is to school prayer as intelligent design is to
creationism, an attempt to dress a religious activity or claim in
secular clothing.
That is your statement, not the Illinois state legislature's.
Of course, I don't understand why this problem even exists since Jesus
condemned such examples of hypocrisy:
Matthew 6:5-7
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Do you believe in the bible when it supports your argument? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:56:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:52:36 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneKvWup50hfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
<snip>
That is an exaggeration. The MOS is not "religious in nature." It is a
moment of making no sound and stillness. What individuals do with that
moment is up to them.
The moment of silence is to school prayer as intelligent design is to
creationism, an attempt to dress a religious activity or claim in
secular clothing.
That is your statement, not the Illinois state legislature's.
Their claim is bogus. Read it again.
Of course, I don't understand why this problem even exists since Jesus
condemned such examples of hypocrisy:
Matthew 6:5-7
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Do you believe in the bible when it supports your argument? ;-)
I'm not religious, but it strikes me that religious people should make a
tiny attempt to follow the teachings of the person they claim to follow.
If not, fine, I'm happy to point out that they are hypocrites.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:57:49 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
Do you believe in the bible when it supports your argument? ;-)
I'm not religious, but it strikes me that religious people should make a
tiny attempt to follow the teachings of the person they claim to follow.
If not, fine, I'm happy to point out that they are hypocrites.
Fair enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 10:16:46 AM |
|
|
Phlip wrote:
...However, back when I had to do that fucking thing, I always meditated
on "Gee it's fun to be used as a political football, so evil politicians
can exploit our single-issue voters, and trick them into voting against
their own interests!"
Even if true it's hardly a legal justification supporting an injunction
in this case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
