| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2006 07:28:44 AM |
| Object: |
Everson law, the unbroken history |
While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
the evidence for Everson making new law
Not good news for laffs
Oh, NOW BUCKY says "EVERSON IS BESIDE THE POINT" ! ! !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/d7bba962b4f719ff?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2C01280D
[excerpt -- However the entire post is chock full of damaging evidence
against laffs unsubstantiated claims, not just the excerpt portion givien
here.]
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
_______________________________________
AS DEFINED IN 1947:
____________________________
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16] or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and
vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect "a
wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States,
supra, at 164.
[Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing,
330 U.S. 1(1947)]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the church-state decisions of the Supreme Court that are widely
considered landmark decisions in church-state jurisprudence dealt with
public money and religiously based nonprofit organizations. The cases are
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), and
the religiously based nonprofits were K-12 schools. The Everson case dealt
with a New Jersey law that established a program of state aid for the
transportation of children to religiously based schools and public schools
alike. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision established two legal principles
crucial for our purposes. [The 5-4 decision came about as a result of the
holding reached by the majority. --See below -- It was 9-0 with regards to
the definition of what the Establishment Clause meant] The first one is
that the First Amendment's establishment clause ("Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion . . .") means no government
aid may be given in support of religion, even aid given not to any one
religious group but in support of religion generally. In an often-quoted
passage, justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court majority, stated: "The
'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. (1) A few sentences later Black added, "In the
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was
intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' (2)
With those words, the Supreme Court adopted the legal doctrine of no aid
to religion, either to specific religious groups or to religion generally.
Somewhat surprisingly the Supreme Court held, in spite of the no-aid
doctrine it articulated, that New Jersey could pay for the transportation
of children to religious schools. Black's opinion acknowledged: "It is
undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools. There
is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the
church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children's bus
fares out of their own pockets. (3) This leads to an obvious question: How
did justice Black square the giving of aid for the transportation of
children to religiously based schools with his own just-enunciated no-aid
doctrine! He did so by distinguishing between programs that would
contribute "money to the schools" or would "support them" and those, such
as the one that was being challenged in that case, "indisputably marked
off from the religious function" of schools.(4) He held that bus
transportation was clearly separable from the religious mission of the
schools and similar to general public services such as police and fire
protection and sewage disposal. Thus it could be supported by public
funds.
The Supreme Court thereby established a second crucial legal doctrine,
namely, that while public money may not go to support religious programs
or organizations, it may go to provide services not directly related to the
religious mission of religious organizations. This was the beginning of the
legal doctrine that separates the sacred and the secular aspects of a
religiously based organization, and holds that public money may flow to
its secular, but not its sacred aspects.
(Source of material: WHEN SACRED AND SECULAR MIX, Religious Nonprofit
Organizations and Public Money, By Stephen V Monsma, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc (1996) Pages 30-36 )
____________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 1993
________________________________
Wall of Separation
The basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is to erect a "wall of
separation" between church and state. The Clause clearly forbids the
federal government or a state government from:
1. Establishing a church;
2. Passing laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another;
3. Forcing or influencing a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion;
4. Punishing a person for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance;
5. Levying a tax to support religious activities or institutions, to teach
or practice religion;
6. Participating openly or secretly in the affairs of any religious
organization or group.
[Blond's Constitutional Law, By Neil C. Blond, Revised Edition Prepared by
Brett I. Harris, Robert M. Novick Sulzburger & Graham Publishing, LTD.,
(1993) pp.391-393
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 1997-98
________________________________
A. Background: The basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is, in the
words of Thomas Jefferson, to erect "a wall of separation between church
and state." However, the image "wall" does not help very much in
determining what types of state actions violate the Clause.
Specific prohibitions: There are some types of governmental actions which
clearly late the Establishment Clause. The majority catalogued some of
these in Everson v Bd of Education, supra:
a. No official church: Neither a state nor the federal government may set
up an official church.
b. No coercion: Government may not force [or] influence a person to go to
or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion."
c. Punishment for beliefs: No one may be "punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance."
d. No preference: Government may not prefer one religion over another.
Also, government may not prefer religion to non-religion.
e. Participation: Government may not participate in the affairs of
religious organizations, and such organizations may not participate in the
affairs of government.
Note: Some of these prohibitions (e.g., the right not to be punished for
one's religious beliefs) are also protected by the Free Exercise Clause,
perhaps even more directly than by the Establishment Clause. Nonetheless,
the Everson Court purported to be listing solely those prohibitions
stemming from the Establishment Clause.
[SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Emanuel Law Outlines, Constitutional Law, Steven L.
Emanuel, 15th Edition, Emanuel Publishing Corp. Larchmont, N Y (1997-98)
pp. 684-85]
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 2000
________________________________
The Everson No-Aid formula and School Transportation.
In the Supreme Courts INITIAL FORAY, into Establishment Clause
Jurisprudence it provided a so called no aid formula as SETTING THE RULE in
state assistance of religion. (caps added for emphasis by me)
Source: Constitutional Law, Casenote Law Outlines. Gary Goodpastor Prof of
Law U of Cal Davis School of Law. $th Edition, Casebook Publishers, (2000)
p. 14-2
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 2005
________________________________
The Establishment Clause is not merely a probition of a government
sponsored religion or simply a command of equal treatment among religions.
Government cannot "pass laws which aid one religion or prefer one religion
over another."
Everson v. Bd of Ed. 1947
Source: Constitutional, Law Black Letter Guidelines, 7th Edition, Jerome
A. Barron. C. Thomas Dienes, Thompson/West (2005) p 474
==============================================================
To sum up all I picked up at the law library yesterday
The Establishment Clause is not merely a probition of a government
sponsored religion or simply a command of equal treatment among religions.
Government cannot "pass laws which aid one religion or prefer one religion
over another."
Everson v. Bd of Ed. 1947
Source: Constitutional, Law Black Letter Guidelines, 7th Edition, Jerome
A. Barron. C. Thomas Dienes, Thompson/West (2005) p 474
==========================================================
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:49:46 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|
:|>So in your thinking the USSC accepted a state case and decided it using
:|>the New Jersey Constitution and or NJ state case law, law.
:|
:|
:|>They had no authority to do that.
:|
:|Exactly why does the USSC not have the "right" to
:|review lower court law when the state is the appellant?
Supreme Court Review of State Court Cases
As long as a federal question is Present the court may review civil and
criminal cases from state courts.
Source: Constitutional Law, Sum and Substance Quick Review, Philips J.
Prygoski, 11th Edition, Thompson/West (2005) p. 2
That doesn't help your case any.
BTW just for the record:
The Everson No-Aid formula and School Transportation.
In the Supreme Courts INITIAL FORAY, (caps added by me) into Establishment
Clause Jurisprudence it provided a so called no aid formula as SETTING THE
RULE in state assistance of religion.
Source: Constitutional Law, Casenote Law Outlines. Gary Goodpastor Prof of
Law U of Cal Davis School of Law. $th Edition, Casebook Publishers, (2000)
p. 14-2
Thus, remember when you claimed there were hundreds perhaps thousands of
Est clause cases/caselaw?
You were incorrect. It appears that Everson was the very first USSC Est
Clause case in the 156 years this govt had functioned under the
Constitution.
=============================================================
None helps you any
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history; Everson Justices ignored the 10th Amendment |
28 Apr 2006 12:17:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
the evidence for Everson making new law
Not good news for laffs
Oh, NOW BUCKY says "EVERSON IS BESIDE THE POINT" ! ! !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/d7bba962b4f71=
9ff?hl=3Den&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S2C01280D
[excerpt -- However the entire post is chock full of damaging evidence
against laffs unsubstantiated claims, not just the excerpt portion givien
here.]
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
_______________________________________
AS DEFINED IN 1947:
____________________________
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another.
Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion.
No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16] or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and
vice versa.
In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by
law was intended to erect "a
wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States,
supra, at 164.
[Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing,
330 U.S. 1(1947)]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the church-state decisions of the Supreme Court that are widely
considered landmark decisions in church-state jurisprudence dealt with
public money and religiously based nonprofit organizations. The cases are
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), and
the religiously based nonprofits were K-12 schools. The Everson case dealt
with a New Jersey law that established a program of state aid for the
transportation of children to religiously based schools and public schoo=
ls
alike. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision established two legal principles
crucial for our purposes. [The 5-4 decision came about as a result of the
holding reached by the majority. --See below -- It was 9-0 with regards =
to
the definition of what the Establishment Clause meant] The first one is
that the First Amendment's establishment clause ("Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion . . .") means no government
aid may be given in support of religion, even aid given not to any one
religious group but in support of religion generally. In an often-quoted
passage, justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court majority, stated: "The
'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or pref=
er
one religion over another. (1) A few sentences later Black added, "In the
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law w=
as
intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' (2)
With those words, the Supreme Court adopted the legal doctrine of no aid
to religion, either to specific religious groups or to religion generall=
y=2E
Somewhat surprisingly the Supreme Court held, in spite of the no-aid
doctrine it articulated, that New Jersey could pay for the transportation
of children to religious schools. Black's opinion acknowledged: "It is
undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools. There
is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the
church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children's bus
fares out of their own pockets. (3) This leads to an obvious question: H=
ow
did justice Black square the giving of aid for the transportation of
children to religiously based schools with his own just-enunciated no-aid
doctrine! He did so by distinguishing between programs that would
contribute "money to the schools" or would "support them" and those, such
as the one that was being challenged in that case, "indisputably marked
off from the religious function" of schools.(4) He held that bus
transportation was clearly separable from the religious mission of the
schools and similar to general public services such as police and fire
protection and sewage disposal. Thus it could be supported by public
funds.
The Supreme Court thereby established a second crucial legal doctrine,
namely, that while public money may not go to support religious programs
or organizations, it may go to provide services not directly related to t=
he
religious mission of religious organizations. This was the beginning of t=
he
legal doctrine that separates the sacred and the secular aspects of a
religiously based organization, and holds that public money may flow to
its secular, but not its sacred aspects.
(Source of material: WHEN SACRED AND SECULAR MIX, Religious Nonprofit
Organizations and Public Money, By Stephen V Monsma, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc (1996) Pages 30-36 )
____________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 1993
________________________________
Wall of Separation
The basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is to erect a "wall of
separation" between church and state. The Clause clearly forbids the
federal government or a state government from:
1. Establishing a church;
2. Passing laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another;
3. Forcing or influencing a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion;
4. Punishing a person for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance;
5. Levying a tax to support religious activities or institutions, to teach
or practice religion;
6. Participating openly or secretly in the affairs of any religious
organization or group.
[Blond's Constitutional Law, By Neil C. Blond, Revised Edition Prepared by
Brett I. Harris, Robert M. Novick Sulzburger & Graham Publishing, LTD.,
(1993) pp.391-393
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 1997-98
________________________________
A. Background: The basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is, in the
words of Thomas Jefferson, to erect "a wall of separation between church
and state." However, the image "wall" does not help very much in
determining what types of state actions violate the Clause.
Specific prohibitions: There are some types of governmental actions which
clearly late the Establishment Clause. The majority catalogued some of
these in Everson v Bd of Education, supra:
a. No official church: Neither a state nor the federal government may set
up an official church.
b. No coercion: Government may not force [or] influence a person to go to
or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion."
c. Punishment for beliefs: No one may be "punished for entertaining or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance."
d. No preference: Government may not prefer one religion over another.
Also, government may not prefer religion to non-religion.
e. Participation: Government may not participate in the affairs of
religious organizations, and such organizations may not participate in the
affairs of government.
Note: Some of these prohibitions (e.g., the right not to be punished for
one's religious beliefs) are also protected by the Free Exercise Clause,
perhaps even more directly than by the Establishment Clause. Nonetheless,
the Everson Court purported to be listing solely those prohibitions
stemming from the Establishment Clause.
[SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Emanuel Law Outlines, Constitutional Law, Steven =
L=2E
Emanuel, 15th Edition, Emanuel Publishing Corp. Larchmont, N Y (1997-98)
pp. 684-85]
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 2000
________________________________
The Everson No-Aid formula and School Transportation.
In the Supreme Courts INITIAL FORAY, into Establishment Clause
Jurisprudence it provided a so called no aid formula as SETTING THE RULE =
in
state assistance of religion. (caps added for emphasis by me)
Source: Constitutional Law, Casenote Law Outlines. Gary Goodpastor Prof of
Law U of Cal Davis School of Law. $th Edition, Casebook Publishers, (2000)
p. 14-2
__________________________________
AS BEING DEFINED IN 2005
________________________________
The Establishment Clause is not merely a probition of a government
sponsored religion or simply a command of equal treatment among religions.
Government cannot "pass laws which aid one religion or prefer one religion
over another."
Everson v. Bd of Ed. 1947
Source: Constitutional, Law Black Letter Guidelines, 7th Edition, Jerome
A. Barron. C. Thomas Dienes, Thompson/West (2005) p 474
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
To sum up all I picked up at the law library yesterday
The Establishment Clause is not merely a probition of a government
sponsored religion or simply a command of equal treatment among religions.
Government cannot "pass laws which aid one religion or prefer one religion
over another."
Everson v. Bd of Ed. 1947
Source: Constitutional, Law Black Letter Guidelines, 7th Edition, Jerome
A. Barron. C. Thomas Dienes, Thompson/West (2005) p 474
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:49:46 -0400,
:| wrote:
:|
:|
:|>So in your thinking the USSC accepted a state case and decided it us=
ing
:|>the New Jersey Constitution and or NJ state case law, law.
:|
:|
:|>They had no authority to do that.
:|
:|Exactly why does the USSC not have the "right" to
:|review lower court law when the state is the appellant?
Supreme Court Review of State Court Cases
As long as a federal question is Present the court may review civil and
criminal cases from state courts.
Source: Constitutional Law, Sum and Substance Quick Review, Philips J.
Prygoski, 11th Edition, Thompson/West (2005) p. 2
That doesn't help your case any.
The Everson Justices, while hiding behind Jefferson's coat tails to
help justify their strained interpretation of the establishment clause,
ignored other Jefferson writings pertaining to the 10th Amendment.
Jefferson had noted that the Founding Christians had written the 1st
and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to legislate
religion uniquely to the state governments:
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also
expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that
'the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
or to the people': and that no power over the freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US.
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful
powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the
states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions,
1798.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
But regardless of Jefferson's actual thoughts about c&s separation, the
Court didn't even have the guts to mention the 10th Amendment in the
Everson opinion. The Court evidently regarded the 10th A. as too much
of a loose canon to draw attention to with respect to trying to
unlawfully legislate absolute c&s separation from the bench. With
respect to what basic reading skills and common sense tell us about the
1st and 10th Amendments, the Court's interpretation of the
establishment clause was essentially an act of treason where the full
enjoyment of our religious freedoms are concerned.
The states have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to lead non-mandatory (14th) classroom discussions about the
pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for
example, regardless if atheists, separatists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the people to think that doing such things
in public schools is unconstitutional.
BTW just for the record:
The Everson No-Aid formula and School Transportation.
In the Supreme Courts INITIAL FORAY, (caps added by me) into Establishment
Clause Jurisprudence it provided a so called no aid formula as SETTING THE
RULE in state assistance of religion.
Source: Constitutional Law, Casenote Law Outlines. Gary Goodpastor Prof of
Law U of Cal Davis School of Law. $th Edition, Casebook Publishers, (2000)
p. 14-2
Thus, remember when you claimed there were hundreds perhaps thousands of
Est clause cases/caselaw?
You were incorrect. It appears that Everson was the very first USSC Est
Clause case in the 156 years this govt had functioned under the
Constitution.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
None helps you any
***************************************************************
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 =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . 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. Eisne=
r,
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history |
28 Apr 2006 02:32:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:28:44 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
the evidence for Everson making new law
Not good news for laffs
As long as a federal question is Present the court may review civil and
criminal cases from state courts.
Source: Constitutional Law, Sum and Substance Quick Review, Philips J.
Prygoski, 11th Edition, Thompson/West (2005) p. 2
That doesn't help your case any.
"My case"??
about what, Buckley?
"my case" was to counter freddies argument that the
"wall" didn't apply (or shouldn't) to state government
If the wall DOES apply, then "my case" is supported.
Does the "wall" apply to states? --(assuming Everson
established that henceforth it would be) ??
Was what was articulated in Everson of what the "wall"
meant, or was thought to mean, ever articulated prior
to Everson?
If so, then "my case" is supported.
If after Everson, the "new law" you keep harping on is
basically the application of what was already known to
be what the "wall" was in federal law, then my
characterization of "no new law" is, while not
absolutely true, a fairly logical reply to someone who
insists that it cannot be legal and is "treasonous"
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history |
04 May 2006 11:05:18 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:28:44 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
:|>the evidence for Everson making new law
:|>
:|>Not good news for laffs
:|
:|>As long as a federal question is Present the court may review civil and
:|>criminal cases from state courts.
:|>Source: Constitutional Law, Sum and Substance Quick Review, Philips J.
:|>Prygoski, 11th Edition, Thompson/West (2005) p. 2
:|>
:|>
:|>That doesn't help your case any.
:|
:|"My case"??
:|
:|about what, Buckley?
About the following
Nothing else beyond what follows needs to be said.
Summation:
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/6fe11a2df...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6F22310D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/th...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4632110D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
More evidence against you
Here is what you are trying to claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9fec1bbe7...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6235210D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/d9d5fa0da70...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3DE2370D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/3b5f809bae9...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1FE2270D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/3d851618f...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N24F1270D
Bucky, bucky. You still fall short.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/4b0f77527...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50F1470D
Education for Laffs
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c9d150e5f0...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1AE2270D
3 laws established by Everson, while under attack, still survive
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c52502133f142fd?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X12025F0D
Everson law, the unbroken history
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/62e06708fd614808?dmode=source&hl=en
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O24042F0D
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history |
04 May 2006 04:19:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:05:18 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|"My case"??
:|
:|about what, Buckley?
About the following
Nothing else beyond what follows needs to be said.
Yeah, it does, Buckwheat
Post the FIRST response to FREDDIE'S claim that Everson
and Cantwell proved judges were "corrupt and
treasonous"
BTW, YOU weren't invited in the first place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history |
28 Apr 2006 02:21:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:28:44 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
the evidence for Everson making new law
Jesus, Buckley, get a life
Who give a rats ***** if it "made new law", BUCKLEY?
How is that important to whether or not one dumb
***** keeps complaining that states are "supreme" and
that they have a "right" to force religion on citizens?
Whether it's "new law" or an application of what is
understood (at a federal level), and applied to a
state, the final result is that the guarantees of the
federal constitution are protected. Whether that
happened by "new law" or "old law" is immaterial to me.
To my way of thinking, if an accused is accorded
certain "rights" (federally), it's not "new" to me if
the USSC then says it's applicable to states via the
due process clause----particularily when the issue
isn't an argument about WHEN the law is applied, but
WHAT it applies.
I'll say it again
Freddie was ( and still is) arguing "STATES RIGHTS"
Freddie argues that "government" does not include State
government because it's a federal constitution and
that's applicable because a "literal" construction
would mean the wall is only against Federal
"government"-
My original statement to freddie is that the "wall" (or
what it means) applies to ALL government----which
eventually ended up with a statement that "no new law"
was applied
Freddie isn't a constitutional scholar, nor anyone else
here except for those who plaster tons of bandwidth in
an issue they weren't even part of---or those who think
they are.
You wanna educate someone, educate freddie about
literal reading and states rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken history |
04 May 2006 11:03:41 AM |
|
|
laffs@'em-all.com wrote:
:|On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:28:44 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>While at the Law library yesterday I gathered the following to finish up
:|>the evidence for Everson making new law
:|
:|Jesus, Buckley, get a life
:|
:|Who give a rats ***** if it "made new law", BUCKLEY?
You seem obsessed with denial on the topic
:|How is that important to whether or not one dumb
:|***** keeps complaining that states are "supreme" and
:|that they have a "right" to force religion on citizens?
I don't read fred, he was put on my ignore list along with most of the
other trolls a long time ago.
No one takes him seriously. he has effectively destroyed his own
credibility as trolls usually do given time.
On the other hand I am still reading one dumb _______ who cannot admit he
made a mistake, nor is he apparently capable of reading what has been
provided and realize he has made a mistake drop the issue but learn from
it.
:|
:|Whether it's "new law" or an application of what is
:|understood (at a federal level), and applied to a
:|state, the final result is that the guarantees of the
:|federal constitution are protected. Whether that
:|happened by "new law" or "old law" is immaterial to me.
Dude, nobody invests the time and energy you have in trying to defend your
error if it was immaterial to you. Now the actual issue may have been
immaterial but that you were challenged and shown to be factually incorrect
wasn't immaterial to you.
If it was immaterial to you it would have receive a whatever from you a
very long time ago and it would not have been mentioned again.
:|
:|To my way of thinking,
You way of thinking is in error and you have demonstrated your inability to
learn that or unwillingness to learn that fact.
Time after time you made statements that were factually incorrect. Most of
them I actually collected and posted back to you with documentation showing
they were blatantly incorrect
:|if an accused is accorded
:|certain "rights" (federally), it's not "new" to me if
:|the USSC then says it's applicable to states via the
:|due process clause----particularily when the issue
:|isn't an argument about WHEN the law is applied, but
:|WHAT it applies.
:|
:|I'll say it again
:|
:|Freddie was ( and still is) arguing "STATES RIGHTS"
Fred is not nor has he ever been the issue with me on this topic. I have
not addressed fred in any of these posts, I have been addressing you and
the inaccurate claims you have been making.
Bringing fred in this discussion is irrelevant.
If memory serves me correct four or more people have taken you to task on
this topic. They being Bob LeChevalier, Matt Silberstein, Josh Rosenbluth
and myself.
I suspect one may be an attorney or at least has a good deal of training in
the field in some form or fashion (Josh Rosenbluth), one is one of the
smartest people in the newsgroup he reads and posts from and is well
versed in the subjects he usually posts and knows how to find supporting
information and frequently posts such (Bob LeChevalier).
Myself, I have provided data concerning myself in the past. On this
particular topic I have provided historical and legal data, primary source
and secondary source data from respected and well qualified sources.
All four of us have said and shown, with documentation, you to be
incorrect.
You on the other hand have provided nothing except you "you say."
Your "you say" is irrelevant and meaningless.
You have shown with your silly lame posts that you are truly no different
than fred.
Nothing else beyond what follows needs to be said.
Summation:
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/6fe11a2df...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6F22310D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/th...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4632110D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
More evidence against you
Here is what you are trying to claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9fec1bbe7...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6235210D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/d9d5fa0da70...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3DE2370D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/3b5f809bae9...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1FE2270D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/3d851618f...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N24F1270D
Bucky, bucky. You still fall short.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/4b0f77527...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50F1470D
Education for Laffs
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c9d150e5f0...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1AE2270D
3 laws established by Everson, while under attack, still survive
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c52502133f142fd?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X12025F0D
Everson law, the unbroken history
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/62e06708fd614808?dmode=source&hl=en
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O24042F0D
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
04 May 2006 04:17:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:03:41 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
On the other hand I am still reading one dumb _______ who cannot admit he
made a mistake,
Didn't make a "mistake"
The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
:|Whether it's "new law" or an application of what is
:|understood (at a federal level), and applied to a
:|state, the final result is that the guarantees of the
:|federal constitution are protected. Whether that
:|happened by "new law" or "old law" is immaterial to me.
Time after time you made statements that were factually incorrect.
Are you saying that Judges are corrupt and treasonous?
That is the ONLY issue dealing with the "fred"
Fred is not nor has he ever been the issue with me on this topic.
Bringing fred in this discussion is irrelevant.
Well, there ya go, Buckwheat--YOU weren't brought in,
you chose to break in.
Freddie IS the reason for the post. Sans freddie, I
wouldn't have engaged in any "debate" vis a vis Everson
or Cantwell
Freddie "argues" that STATES have rights to establish
religion and judges who rule otherwise are "corrupt and
treasonous"
Since both Everson and Cantwell sided with those who
were doing religious activities (of one kind or
another), I used the "favorable" ruling to suggest
Freddie stop whining.
Finally, if YOU "dont read fred" for obvious (good)
reasons, then why would I engage the "fred" in serious
argument about constitutional law which YOU wanted to
turn it into. For the same reason you "don't read
fred", I choose not to answer fred in any other way
than what I do.
If you "dont read fred", then stay out of the goddamned
thread. I don't recall anyone tell me you're the
Usenet correct officer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
05 May 2006 05:01:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:03:41 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>On the other hand I am still reading one dumb _______ who cannot admit he
:|>made a mistake,
:|
:|Didn't make a "mistake"
:|
:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************************
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
08 May 2006 06:18:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:01:32 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM wrote:
:|On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:03:41 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|>On the other hand I am still reading one dumb _______ who cannot admit he
:|>made a mistake,
:|
:|Didn't make a "mistake"
:|
:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
So, Freddieloon didn't claim Judges were "corrupt and
treasonous"?
You seem to be helping me prove what a pathological
person you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
11 May 2006 09:43:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
:|On Fri, 05 May 2006 06:01:32 -0400,
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:03:41 -0400,
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>On the other hand I am still reading one dumb _______ who cannot admit he
:|>>:|>made a mistake,
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Didn't make a "mistake"
:|>>:|
:|>>:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
:|>
:|>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|
:|So, Freddieloon didn't claim Judges were "corrupt and
:|treasonous"?
:|
I didn't reply to fred
I rarely ever read anything fred posts, since he is nothing but a troll. If
you ever read one of fred's posts you have basically read them all. As a
result of his lame repeats and overall lack of knowledge he has no
credibility Thus, not worth me spending any real time on..
I only read two newsgroups, Alt. politics.usa.constitution and
alt.education. I only read and post from the first daily. The latter I
read maybe once or twice a week and rarely post from. Fred is on ignore
in the first and I usually pass over any posts of his, unread, in the
latter. Only on very, very rare occasions do I ever read a post of his and
even rarer to I ever reply to any of his anymore. They don't need replied
to, they are *****.
I replied to you and this comment you make
:|>>:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
The actual issue of this thread was Everson. Did it or did it not make
"law"
This particular thread was part of a series of threads and posts exposing
laff's inability to admit a mistake and his fred like behavior in
continuing to defend that mistake.
It had nothing to do with fred, or any of his lame claims, though laff
tried to being fred into the discussion too. However, I refused to play
that game and continued to focus on Laff, and his errors with regards to
Everson.
:|You seem to be helping me prove what a pathological
:|person you are.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
You jumped into the midst of a discussion apparently without doing your
background homework first.
***************************************************************
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 · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . 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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
12 May 2006 03:56:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
:|>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
:|
:|So, Freddieloon didn't claim Judges were "corrupt and
:|treasonous"?
:|
I didn't reply to fred
I rarely ever read anything fred posts, since he is nothing but a troll. If
you ever read one of fred's posts you have basically read them all. As a
result of his lame repeats and overall lack of knowledge he has no
credibility Thus, not worth me spending any real time on..
I only read two newsgroups, Alt. politics.usa.constitution and
alt.education. I only read and post from the first daily. The latter I
read maybe once or twice a week and rarely post from. Fred is on ignore
in the first and I usually pass over any posts of his, unread, in the
latter. Only on very, very rare occasions do I ever read a post of his and
even rarer to I ever reply to any of his anymore. They don't need replied
to, they are *****.
But other people DO reply to Fred, and you are missing out on that
context when you jump into a thread that is lambasting Fred and start
attacking the lambaster for stating something in a way that
semantically displeases you.
The argument between you and laff was purely semantics. S/he's on
your side. Or at least *was*.
I replied to you and this comment you make
:|>>:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
The actual issue of this thread was Everson. Did it or did it not make
"law"
No that was NOT the issue of the thread. The issue was some silly
claim that Fred made, in the context of which, the claim "Everson did
not make law" made some sense using a certain semantics of "make law"
that fit with Fred's usage. It was NOT an academic argument about the
nature of judicial practice; it was a rebuttal to Fred.
Removing Fred from the context turned it into a different sort of
argument, and you put laff in a position where s/he was answering both
you and Fred at the same time making opposite arguments.
This particular thread was part of a series of threads and posts exposing
laff's inability to admit a mistake and his fred like behavior in
continuing to defend that mistake.
Sorry, Jim, but you aren't any less tenacious at defending your
wording when it is less than clear to others. You write things your
way. laff writes things his way. I might have preferred that laff
express what s/he was saying differently so as to reduce the chance of
misunderstanding, but it simply did not warrant the kind of attack you
launched.
No one is required to admit a mistake on Usenet. And s/he would have
not had anything to defend if you had been paying attention to the
context that involved fred.
It had nothing to do with fred, or any of his lame claims,
It had EVERYTHING to do with fred, because laff would not have posted
what he did in response to anyone else.
though laff tried to being fred into the discussion too.
Fred was already in the discussion before Laff was. You just filtered
out half the discussion.
However, I refused to play
that game and continued to focus on Laff, and his errors with regards to
Everson.
His errors were pure semantics.
:|You seem to be helping me prove what a pathological
:|person you are.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
You jumped into the midst of a discussion apparently without doing your
background homework first.
Actually you did, Jim. The background was the exchange between laff
and Fred. Your correction was at best a technical wording issue of
semantics. Everyone else understood what laff was saying, and it was
not incorrect IN CONTEXT. It just took a while before s/he realized
that you were intently refusing to learn that context, so as to have
the argument make sense.
I am NOT claiming that laff's statements were correct in some abstract
legal-theoretical sense. In the Fred context, they made sense, even
if they weren't strictly correct, and your statements while perhaps
more correct, made no sense at all because they were irrelevant to the
context.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession. |
15 May 2006 10:24:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:56:49 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
I only read two newsgroups, Alt. politics.usa.constitution and
alt.education.
"But other people DO reply to Fred, ..."
The argument between you and laff was purely semantics. S/he's on
your side. Or at least *was*.
Just not as supportive, now.
I replied to you and this comment you make
:|>>:|The issue is "corrupt and treasnous judges",
The actual issue of this thread was Everson. Did it or did it not make
"law"
"No that was NOT the issue of the thread. ..... s/he was answering both
you and Fred at the same time making opposite arguments.
"He",--- thankew very much
I am NOT claiming that laff's statements were correct in some abstract
legal-theoretical sense.
And I didn't claim they were---- outside the
generalization I was addressing to Freddie.
Not until Bucks told me that "I never read Freddie" did
it dawn on me that he'd eliminated the entire reason I
replied to fred.
Seems a whole lot of time could have been saved........
I appreciate your evaluation of the issue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Everson law, the unbroken, eternal history of Buckley's obsession, 2nd eon. |
11 May 2006 03:16:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:43:33 -0400,
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|So, Freddieloon didn't claim Judges were "corrupt and
:|treasonous"?
:|
I didn't reply to fred
But I did, Buckeye
And the issue was "Corrupt Judges" and Treasonous
Judges"----not whether or not Everson applied laws to
states.
The definition of "what the wall is" is the same---the
court just applied it to states
========================================================
A typical self-made, conservative "hard working" type:
Later, there would be boarding school and then Yale, from
which he was expelled after a drunken party. He ended up
at the University of Pittsburgh, where his father was
chairman of the board of trustees. After getting a bachelor's
degree in English in 1957, he was put to work first in the
Scaife family business and later in Mellon enterprises.
Within a few years, both of his parents were dead and Scaife
had inherited an enormous fortune whose value is currently
estimated by Forbes as about $1 billion (a significant
underestimate, according to one reliable source
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Revisiting Everson: Thrown Off Course
Boston Defends Everson:
Mission: Overturn Everson v bd of ed
Everson, the war against continues
Everson was consonant with our original principles
Revisiting Everson: My Country - Sweet Land
3 laws establishted by Everson, while under attack, still survive
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
| Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Fred, Jefferson, Reynolds, Everson down in flames
Skoros to Straighten Out Everson?
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory
Re: Oh, NOW Freddie says "EVERSON IS BESIDE THE POINT" ! ! !
Jewish State Has Become An Anachronism - Zionism Belongs To The Garbage Dump Of History
|
|
|
