"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

You are concocting things on the spot.

No, I am repeating the gist of a goodly number of court rulings.

Ah yes, strength in numbers.

Strength in reference to THE authority stated in the Constitution for
matters in dispute regarding the Constitution.

Where are you coming from with these vague references to the
Constitution?

Article III, which I have quoted in response to you several times as
to the authority of the USSC, so the reference is hardly vague.

It's your credibility.

I have plenty of credibility in the newsgroups which I habituate. I
research and post data, and make it clear the difference between my
personal opinion and that of the references which I cite.

You have no credibility, and never post anything other than your own
opinion, or quotes from people who you think agree with you in some
vague sense.

The problem is that Lincoln wasn't an especially good authority on the
Constitution. He may have stated a political reality, but in 1857
when he actually said that, he did not know that it would take a
million lives to overthrow the "men who pervert the Constitution".

You would probably like for everybody to believe that interpreting the
Constitution requires a seance.

No. It requires a Supreme Court.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

That was his opinion. And of course Jefferson's "common sense" was
not the "common sense" of his opponents on some matters and thus was
not "common".

And note that he did NOT say anything about "majority", because in the
Civil War, being in the majority wasn't nearly enough. The North
outnumbered the South almost 2 to 1, but it still took those million
lives to win, and a couple more bad breaks and Lincoln would have gone
down in history as a loser and not one of our greatest Presidents.

Let's face it lojbab, you're as anti-religious expression as they come.

No. I am pro-"rule by law".

No you aren't. You persistantly deny your basic reading skills and
common sense with respect to deciding what the Constitution says.

My common sense says that your common sense is wrong. And my reading
skills are quite superior to yours, but it hardly matters, since the
Constitution says that the Supreme Court adjudicates matters arising
regarding the Constitution, not me.

Again, you put Justices who don't give a damn what the Constitution
says

Maybe Congress should be thinking more carefully before accepting
their nomination then.

The fact still remains that they have the authority, and you don't, so
you are de jure, "wrong".

The only reason that you're cheerleading the unconstitutional
decisions of activist Justices is because

... they are the judges, so their decisions are inherently
constitutional.

Sigh. :^( You must be another card-carrying member of the Twilight
Zone.

Given Justices can be split in their decisions, for example, how can
their decisions be inherently constitutional?

The rules of the court indicate what happens when the justices are
split.

You evidently regard Justices as gods

No. It is sufficient for me to regard them as justices of the Supreme
Court. The word "supreme" has significance.

because they tell you what you want to hear about
unconstitutional absolute church-state separation, the Constitution be
damned.

They don't always tell me what I want to hear, but their decision
remains the law nonetheless.

I don't much "celebrate" anything of the sort. But I certainly will
use it in debating a nonentity like you that has nothing but your
irrelevant opinion.

Their opinions matter. Yours don't.

Again, Article 5 of the Constitution shows that the people have the
final say in what the Constitution means.

No it doesn't. There is in fact no mention of "the people" in that
article. Some power to CHANGE the constitution rests with the
Congress and potentially the legislatures, but even that can change
only the text, not what the text means.

They can *effectively* void a precedent. If they get the power to do
so through a constitutional convention. Otherwise they have to rely
on their elected representatives.

But Lincoln reminded the people that the people are the masters of both
Congress and the Courts:

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln (Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas) 1858

Of course, but it isn't a simple majority matter, and that mastery is
limited and indirect.

And perhaps in theory the text of an amendment could say anything. But
I doubt that there will ever be an amendment that specifically
mentions and voids a court case. Without it, that court case remains
on the books, and in any event remains part of history. Plessy vs
Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs Board in 1954, but no court
decision, and no amendment to the constitution, can change the very
real discrimination that occurred under the former from 1895 to 1954.
They cannot void every legal case that relied on the precedent,
probably because they couldn't all be determined - only those with a
written opinion state the legal basis..

Again, evidently anything goes in your book

That's the whole point. "Anything" doesn't go. Just Supreme Court
decisions "go", or if you insist, constitutional amendments if
ratified "go".

to perpetuate the Court's
lie of absolute church-state separation, the Constitution be damned.

The court doesn't lie, nor does it have a doctrine of "absolute
church-state separation".

Again, you are unwittingly putting case precedents on a pedestal,
regarding precedents as more important than the Constitution itself.

No. The precedents ARE the Constitution, de jure.

By your logic Article 5 of the Constitution, the power of the people to
call the shots in America, is meaningless.

There is nothing in Article 5 about the people, and all Article V
discusses us the power to change the constitution, not to decide how
it applies to cases.

You're merely defending your corrupt, lying Justice friends because
they tell you what you want to hear.

Scalia is NOT my friend, and he seldom says what I want to hear. But
his opinion matters, and yours doesn't.

You would have everybody beileve that Scalia's "inherently
constitutional" decisions are overridden by other Justices' "inherently
constitutional" decisions.

Individual justice's "decisions" are not the decisions of the court.
It is the decisions of the court that are inherently constitutional.
His opinion affects the decisions of the court, however, whereas yours
does not.

The problem is that your assertions about
Justices' decisions being "inherently constitutional" doesn't make any
sense.

Only because you lack sense.

Again, Article 5 of the Constitution shows that you are ignoring that
it is ultimately the majority will of the people, not your corrupt USSC
Justice friends, who call the shots in the United States of America.

No the majority will does not call the shots. See above.

Article 5 is not going to go away just because you want to make
everybody slaves to secular-minded Justices.

Article 5 has no bearing on what the current law of the land is.

lojbab