| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2006 11:25:22 PM |
| Object: |
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Donovan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 04:59:55 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Is violating the American Constitution a pro-American activity? Reciting the
Pledge every morning is clearly a ritual. The statement "under God" makes it
a religious ritual. Organizing and forcing all children to participate in
religious rituals at public schools is a blatant violation of The
Constitution.
ACLU is a very American and pro-American organization, struggling to
preserve and promote freedom in America. They also fight the extreme
hypocrisy and moral decay of the "conservative" religious right. Have you
ever heard of any ACLU administrator, or member being accused of child
molestation or taking bribes? I don't think so.
Their web site www.aclu.org describes in great detail what their activities
are all about.
Mark
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The
lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of
being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an
attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not
believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility
and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 08:37:25 AM |
|
|
In article <Le1Df.7203$Cf7.3550@trnddc06>, "Mark Donovan" <md@md.kz>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Is violating the American Constitution a pro-American activity? Reciting the
Pledge every morning is clearly a ritual.
So is going to recess at noon every day.
Absent any specific religious reference, mere rituals do not violate the
Constitution. If the ACLU wants to sue because of the god reference,
fine. I think it's petty but at least they have a legal point. Suing
over a ritual, however, has no legal basis whatsoever.
It's getting so that whenever anyone doesn't like something, they
automatically sue, saying their rights are violated, whether they
actually have been or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 02:49:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:37:25 -0500, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <Le1Df.7203$Cf7.3550@trnddc06>, "Mark Donovan" <md@md.kz>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Is violating the American Constitution a pro-American activity? Reciting the
Pledge every morning is clearly a ritual.
So is going to recess at noon every day.
Absent any specific religious reference, mere rituals do not violate the
Constitution. If the ACLU wants to sue because of the god reference,
fine. I think it's petty but at least they have a legal point. Suing
over a ritual, however, has no legal basis whatsoever.
It's getting so that whenever anyone doesn't like something, they
automatically sue, saying their rights are violated, whether they
actually have been or not.
In theory at least, our public schools are educational facilities, not
indoctrination centers. How is the purpose of education served by
forcing students to swear fealty to a brightly colored piece of cloth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:25:30 PM |
|
|
In article <5m9qt19veqqn0866tk9k8vl7ug4vle922u@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:37:25 -0500, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <Le1Df.7203$Cf7.3550@trnddc06>, "Mark Donovan" <md@md.kz>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the
ACLU automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Is violating the American Constitution a pro-American activity? Reciting
the Pledge every morning is clearly a ritual.
So is going to recess at noon every day.
Absent any specific religious reference, mere rituals do not violate the
Constitution. If the ACLU wants to sue because of the god reference,
fine. I think it's petty but at least they have a legal point. Suing
over a ritual, however, has no legal basis whatsoever.
It's getting so that whenever anyone doesn't like something, they
automatically sue, saying their rights are violated, whether they
actually have been or not.
In theory at least, our public schools are educational facilities, not
indoctrination centers. How is the purpose of education served by
forcing students to swear fealty to a brightly colored piece of cloth?
Whether the purpose of education is served by the pledge or not is
irrelevant to issues of constitutional law. Even if you're right and the
the purpose of education is NOT served by having the students recite the
pledge, that's a matter of public policy which is properly addressed in
the legislature through your elected representatives, not through the
judicial system by way of lawsuits alleging constitutional violations.
Practices not serving the purpose of education may be undesirable but
the do not violate the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 12:31:59 PM |
|
|
What the real problem is, is having a government representative in the
form a teacher say (to a bunch of impressionable children without their
parents present) that 'there is one god and only one god' is state
sponsored monotheism. This is in blatent violation of the
constitution. Pretending this is all about forcing children to say the
pledge is simply a diversion and implicitly dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 12:59:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1138645919.266370.92600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote:
What the real problem is, is having a government representative in the
form a teacher say (to a bunch of impressionable children without their
parents present) that 'there is one god and only one god' is state
sponsored monotheism. This is in blatent violation of the
constitution. Pretending this is all about forcing children to say the
pledge is simply a diversion and implicitly dishonest.
So the schools should just go back to the original version of the pledge
and take that god bit out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
31 Jan 2006 12:18:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:59:44 -0500, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <1138645919.266370.92600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote:
What the real problem is, is having a government representative in the
form a teacher say (to a bunch of impressionable children without their
parents present) that 'there is one god and only one god' is state
sponsored monotheism. This is in blatent violation of the
constitution. Pretending this is all about forcing children to say the
pledge is simply a diversion and implicitly dishonest.
So the schools should just go back to the original version of the pledge
and take that god bit out.
As far as I'm concerned, that would be fine.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 11:54:33 AM |
|
|
In <w5udnYxr24MuzEHenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being
recited.
Requiring, forcing, or even just pushing *any* kind pledge or oath of
"loyalty" is un-American. It's a practice seen in authoritarian and
totalitarian states.
So, of course, you'd support it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Panama Floyd" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 05:00:41 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it.
Who gets to decide what's pro- or anti- American? You? Don't make me
laugh. Thirty years ago, the people of this nation ended an unjust war,
allowed women to take control of their own bodies, ousted a paranoid
crook from the highest office in the land, and removed many of the
obsticles in the way of minorities who wanted to vote.
Now here comes you and your pack of drooling morons who want to turn
back the clock to 1954 because it's "un-American". Go shoot yourselves,
you lying bastards. America is about freedom. America is about
respecting individual choice. America is about empowering government to
perform the will of the majority without harming the minority. You and
your bunch of god-soaked tattle-tales speak of freedom, while
attempting to restrict it. You dismantle the hope of democracy for the
madness of mob rule. You support oppressive governments overseas
because you're too fucking cheap to pay what the rest of the world does
for gasoline.
If you cretins *do* succeed in outlawing legal abortion in the US, I
hope someone you love dies in the first illegal one. Perhaps *then* you
will understand.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edmond Dantes" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 04:57:17 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to
recite the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being
recited.
Considering what crap this country has become over the years, I don't see
the big point in being "pro-American", really "pro-USian", since the rest
of the Americas have nothing to do with this.
I am *pro-INDIVIDUAL. As it would seem the ACLU is. The Pledge is just State
Propaganda, and is meaningless to the kids anyway. It is a sad urge to
accept the United States for what it is, not improve it to make it a better
place. Just Believe. Don't Question. Do as You're Told you peon. If I have
to be a Mindless Vessel of Belief just to be "pro-American", I'll be
anti-USian every darn time.
--
-- Edmond Dantes
Shameless plugs:
http://www.BellsOfJoy.com
http://www.PetzFriendz.com
http://www.greenthumb1.com
http://www.anyhottips.com
http://www.HardIndustry.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Orr" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 08:39:30 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/news.aspx?story=2968
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school
board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were
violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher
punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit
is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.
On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as
he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math
teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being
unpatriotic.
Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the
Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney
with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe
that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.
"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and
one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in
instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and
decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.
The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to
remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.
For crying out loud. Why do we need to have to fight this stupid
battle every few years? Didn't the Supreme Court already decide
this in 1943 (West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette,
one of the landmark cases of religious liberty)? Justice Robert
Jackson said it best in the majority opinion:
[T]he very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes
of political controversy, to place them beyond
the reach of majorities...If there is any fixed
star in our constitutional constellation, it is
that no official, high or petty, can prescribe
what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters of opinion.
Defending this principle is the most American thing anyone can do.
--
Craig
"Here, Mr. Socrates, drink this hemlock tea.
It's an all-natural herbal supplement."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 02:56:24 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Because if one thing says "American", it's children making oaths they
don't even understand, and being compelled to make them when they do
understand and disagree with them.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wunderkind" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 04:51:49 AM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
Because if one thing says "American", it's children making oaths they
don't even understand, and being compelled to make them when they do
understand and disagree with them.
Idiot.
It's just like Christian indoctrination. The Christers force the kids to
recite various passages and creeds without sufficiently explaining them.
When kids bring up the inconsistences in the verses and beliefs, clergy
always say that it's what we believe - or worse, God will punish you for
that!
WK
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wunderkind" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 04:48:44 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath? The Pledge
is just that - a loyalty oath to flag and country. Patriotism that
arises without coercion is genuine.
WK
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 08:40:22 AM |
|
|
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 03:35:51 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed as pro-American, the ACLU
automatically opposes it. The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:27:30 PM |
|
|
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 06:45:22 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 09:25:22 PM |
|
|
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 10:11:28 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
29 Jan 2006 11:35:56 PM |
|
|
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 09:53:31 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just because
one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference) no
more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite the
introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb "to
be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery, too.
I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
Please quote ME where I claimed you favored such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 10:14:32 AM |
|
|
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference)
no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite
the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb
"to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
Think about it for a while. Maybe the distinction will come to you. Just
because you don't like something or oppose it, doesn't mean it violates
the Constitution somehow.
I'm generally pro-choice but I disagree with the Court's decision in
Roe, also. I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the
government from restricting abortion. The justices just made up a right
out of thin air with a lot of flowery language about "penumbras of
freedom" and whatnot.
If we as a society want the "right of privacy" (including abortion) to
be guaranteed in the Constitution, then we should use the mechanism the
founders provided and amend the darned thing, not have judges doing it
based on whim and judicial fiat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 11:22:44 AM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god reference)
no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to recite
the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the verb
"to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
It does when you believe the state has the power to mandate
loyalty oaths. I don't really care if you're in favor or not,
your totalitarian leanings are due to your belief that the
state has such power.
Think about it for a while. Maybe the distinction will come to you. Just
because you don't like something or oppose it, doesn't mean it violates
the Constitution somehow.
As I've said before, the supreme court disagrees with you.
I suggest you try to get over yourself.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 01:03:03 PM |
|
|
In article <11tsir4h1dlsed7@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes
automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of
the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference)
no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to
recite
the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the
verb
"to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was
hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No
problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
It does when you believe the state has the power to mandate
loyalty oaths.
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And the pledge isn't an oath. It's a pledge. There's a difference, which
is why you can be put in jail for lying under oath but not for lying
under pledge.
A pledge is a promise.
An oath is a promise that has legal or spiritual consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 01:24:48 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsir4h1dlsed7@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes
automatically it a
violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation of
the
pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference)
no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to
recite
the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of the
verb
"to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was
hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No
problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just fine
with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can define
terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
It does when you believe the state has the power to mandate
loyalty oaths.
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And it is. Like I said, you need to get over yourself.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 03:43:17 PM |
|
|
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsir4h1dlsed7@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty
oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes
automatically it a violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation
of the pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference) no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to
recite the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of
the verb "to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about
slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was
hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No
problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just
fine with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can
define terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
It does when you believe the state has the power to mandate
loyalty oaths.
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
Like I said, you need to get over yourself.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with you needs to get over themselves.
Irony much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 06:01:50 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsir4h1dlsed7@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsdjr6ekrc8b8@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tr4fg5qiitcfc@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqod291thj02d@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tqd9nsokc82e0@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <g41Df.5378$2O6.5176@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote:
J Young wrote:
It's become apparent that if an issue is viewed
as pro-American, the ACLU automatically opposes it.
The law doesn't force the obnoxious brat to recite
the Pledge, just stand as a sign of respect while
it is being recited.
So you're in favor of the government imposing a loyalty
oath?
Whether a person is in favor of it or not is irrelevant. Just
because one is not in favor of something hardly makes
automatically it a violation of the Constitution. Teachers requiring recitation
of the pledge alone (leaving out the issues surrounding the god
reference) no more violates the Constitution than requiring students to
recite the introduction to "Romeo & Juliet" or the various forms of
the verb "to be".
The supreme court disagreed with you decades ago; requiring
recitation of the pledge is unconstitutional.
Yes, the Supreme Court disagreed with me decades ago about
slavery,
too. I think it's wrong but decades ago they said it was
hunky-dory. Same
with interning the Japanese Americans. Me? Bad. The Court? No
problem.
Odd, I would have thought your totalitarian bent would be just
fine with internment camps and slavery.
Please post evidence of my "totalitarian bent" so that we can
define terms.
State-imposed loyalty oaths.
Okay, now please quote me back any post where I actually said I favor
such things.
You disagree with the supreme court ruling which ruled them
unconstitutional.
Just because I believe something doesn't violate the Constitution
doesn't mean I'm in favor of it, nor does it mean I have a "totalitarian
bent".
It does when you believe the state has the power to mandate
loyalty oaths.
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
Like I said, you need to get over yourself.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with you needs to get over themselves.
No, anyone like you who 1) insists that a law is constitutional,
yet 2) is completely ignorant of case law, needs to get over
themselves.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 06:54:20 PM |
|
|
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then. We just
need nine unelectable and unaccountable judges to tell us what's right
and wrong based on their own personal biases and feelings.
Like I said, you need to get over yourself.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with you needs to get over themselves.
No, anyone like you who 1) insists that a law is constitutional,
yet 2) is completely ignorant of case law, needs to get over
themselves.
You either haven't been paying attention or you're just playing dumb for
effect. I'm not ignorant of the case law. I know all about it. I just
don't agree with it any more than I agree that Plessy, Koramatsu or Roe
are good decisions.
Being nominated to the Supreme Court doesn't suddenly make a person
infallible. If it did, no case law or precedent would ever be overturned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law |
30 Jan 2006 08:50:53 PM |
|
|
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tta7eaa5s6hf5@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
In article <11tsq00r0qu1i74@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:
No, it doesn't. Something doesn't become unconstitutional just because
it's "really bad". It has to actually be prohibited by the Constitution
first.
And it is.
Where? Article and section?
You've already been told about the Barnette decision; I guess
you're too stupid to learn.
And are you so incredibly dumb that you think every single
law is consitutional unless that particular law is declared
explicitly unconstitutional in the text of the constitution?
So basically we don't need a written Constitution at all, then.
No, you just have to be something other than a complete idiot
to understand that a constitutional can't possibly explicitly
name only those laws that are unconstitutional.
But you are a complete idiot.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
