| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2005 06:27:57 PM |
| Object: |
Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.html
November 4, 2005
Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Senators of both parties said Thursday that Judge
Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, had
told them he believed the court might have gone too far in separating
church and state.
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said
that Thursday in a private meeting Judge Alito expressed empathy for "the
impression that the court's decisions were incoherent in this area of the
law in a way that really gives the impression of hostility to religious
speech and religious expression."
Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said after his own
meeting with the judge that he, too, was "very satisfied" that Judge Alito
had said he believed the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting
government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual
expression of religion.
"He indicated that people have a right, a very distinct right, to express
their religious views," Mr. Byrd said.
Although the senators said Judge Alito had not told them how he would rule
in specific cases, their comments were the first indication of his views
concerning one of the most contentious issues before the court.
Many liberals and religious minorities view the court's jurisprudence on
separation of church and state over the last 50 years as a bedrock
principle of American life. But anger over the court's rulings against
school prayer, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other public
forms of religious expression also played a major role in the birth of a
conservative Christian political movement.
The selection of Judge Alito, a conservative federal appeals court judge,
has ignited passions on both sides of the aisle, in part because he would
succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote on
abortion rights and other issues.
The intensity is so high that some members of Congress and outside groups
worry that the divide over Judge Alito could lead to a filibuster. The
so-called Gang of 14 - seven Democrats and seven Republicans who banded
together this year to avert such a shutdown of the nominations process -
met Thursday and publicly proclaimed their agreement intact, at least for
now.
Judge Alito's conversations about religion took place as People for the
American Way, the well-financed liberal advocacy group, said it would begin
running television commercials this weekend opposing his confirmation.
The organization is well known for its television advertisements, starring
Gregory Peck, in opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert
H. Bork. But it has never run commercials so soon after a selection.
The group's new advertisement attacks Judge Alito as a favorite of
conservatives. "First the radical right vetoed Harriet Miers to replace
Sandra Day O'Connor," the script reads. "Now Bush has named their
handpicked candidate, Samuel Alito."
A White House spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said, "It is unfortunate that
interest groups like People for the American Way that are far outside the
mainstream of American politics are trying to degrade what should be a
dignified process."
The leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday scheduled
confirmation hearings for Jan. 9, bucking pressure from the White House to
hold the hearings before Christmas.
[end excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings |
06 Nov 2005 03:19:22 AM |
|
|
In <1dupm19mdemuanijl615e0n7cngj42uhag@4ax.com>,
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.html
November 4, 2005
Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Senators of both parties said Thursday that Judge
Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, had
told them he believed the court might have gone too far in separating
church and state.
But of course. Part of the establishment of the neocon state is to
encourage politically useful religious belief. From the perspective of the
neocon elite who intend to rule us, the courts have "gone too far." I'm
trying to remember which neocon author said separation was a "mistake" by
the Founders. I can't recall now.
Oh well. The neocons made it clear how they would remake the country if
they were given power. The public gave them power. They were quite clear
they intended to establish a politically useful version of Christianity.
And immediately sought ties into the radical fundamentalist movement (the
neocons call them "foot soldiers").
In the end, though, I have to say it'll be rather funny. In a dark kind of
way. I mean, they have deadly serious intentions of ending democracy in
the US. But they're so fucking incompetent it's going to be cluster *****
of a dictatorship...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings |
06 Nov 2005 05:18:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 21:19:22 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
But of course. Part of the establishment of the neocon state is to
encourage politically useful religious belief. From the perspective of the
neocon elite who intend to rule us, the courts have "gone too far." I'm
trying to remember which neocon author said separation was a "mistake" by
the Founders. I can't recall now.
I don't consider him a "neocon" but William Buckley said that.
However, I'm guessing that he, also, said it in _God and Yale_.
Oh well. The neocons made it clear how they would remake the country if
they were given power. The public gave them power. They were quite clear
they intended to establish a politically useful version of Christianity.
And immediately sought ties into the radical fundamentalist movement (the
neocons call them "foot soldiers").
Uh, well . . no. Nearly all the "neocons" have no idea whatsoever
what a soldier is. When one thinks of Teddy Kennedy serving two
years active duty, ya gotta just think that "neocons" are
especially worthless and they'll do nothing whatsoever for their
country.
It's especially horrendous when a slimeball "neocon" appeals to
"patriotism". Those boys seem to think that "patriotism" means that
the United States should pay them even more trillions in profit.
Was it ***** (and no testacles) Cheney who, when called upon to lead
his boys in singing the National Anthem, started out with, "Take me
out to the ballgame, take me out to the . . . ".
In the end, though, I have to say it'll be rather funny. In a dark kind of
way. I mean, they have deadly serious intentions of ending democracy in
the US. But they're so fucking incompetent it's going to be cluster *****
of a dictatorship...
Ah! Okay. I misunderstood you. You think "NeoCon" means
"neo-conservative". No, it does not. It's "neo-Convict".
"Be the first family in your dell to see your Senator in a cell"
Gray Shockley
-------------------
With apologizes, of course, to CJ
and the, now, mercurized, Fish.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 06:48:15 AM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals or that the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to legislate religion for the States since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
Separationists and atheists don't understand that the 14th Amendment,
not the outcome driven Everson interpretation of the establishment
clause, is what protects their personal federal rights from the
Christian right who can reasonably be expected to get overzealous with
the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the States to legislate
religion.
Again, the following extract from the Opelika opinion not only shows
that the 10th Amendment is still alive and kicking, but that it is the
job of Justices to balance the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States, particularly the power to legislate religion, with the 14th
Amendment protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 06:27:14 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 08:49:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
Again, neither do activist judges, separationists and atheists
understand that the 14th Amendment, not the outcome driven Everson
interpretation of the establishment clause, is what protects their
personal federal rights from the Christian right who can reasonably be
expected to get overzealous with the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of
the States to legislate
religion.
However, condoning the unconstitutional application by activist Judges
of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of certain federal government
powers to the State governments in the name of the 14th Amendment's
protection of personal rights, activist judges, separationists and
atheists is actually undermining the integrity of our 1st Amendment
guaranteed freedoms:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:06:12 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 12:49:35 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
understand that the 14th Amendment, not the outcome driven Everson
interpretation of the establishment clause,
This is an example of your babbling, Freddie
There is no substance to a term like "outcome driven...interpretation"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 09:25:00 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 12:49:35 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131310175.399191.76100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
Again, neither do activist judges, separationists and atheists
understand that the 14th Amendment, not the outcome driven Everson
interpretation of the establishment clause, is what protects their
personal federal rights from the Christian right who can reasonably be
expected to get overzealous with the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of
the States to legislate
religion.
However, condoning the unconstitutional application by activist Judges
of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of certain federal government
powers to the State governments in the name of the 14th Amendment's
protection of personal rights, activist judges, separationists and
atheists is actually undermining the integrity of our 1st Amendment
guaranteed freedoms:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Reposting this will not make your interpretation correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 10:03:07 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 12:49:35 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131310175.399191.76100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
Again, neither do activist judges, separationists and atheists
understand that the 14th Amendment, not the outcome driven Everson
interpretation of the establishment clause, is what protects their
personal federal rights from the Christian right who can reasonably be
expected to get overzealous with the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of
the States to legislate
religion.
However, condoning the unconstitutional application by activist Judges
of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of certain federal government
powers to the State governments in the name of the 14th Amendment's
protection of personal rights, activist judges, separationists and
atheists is actually undermining the integrity of our 1st Amendment
guaranteed freedoms:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Reposting this will not make your interpretation correct.
Ah, an unsubstantiated, leading rebuttal. But that's understandably
the best a separationist can do with respect to the points I made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:06:58 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 14:03:07 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Reposting this will not make your interpretation correct.
Ah, an unsubstantiated, leading rebuttal.
A reader isn't required to rebut babbling, Freddie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 10:15:16 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 14:03:07 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131314587.173339.118170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 12:49:35 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131310175.399191.76100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
Again, neither do activist judges, separationists and atheists
understand that the 14th Amendment, not the outcome driven Everson
interpretation of the establishment clause, is what protects their
personal federal rights from the Christian right who can reasonably be
expected to get overzealous with the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of
the States to legislate
religion.
However, condoning the unconstitutional application by activist Judges
of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of certain federal government
powers to the State governments in the name of the 14th Amendment's
protection of personal rights, activist judges, separationists and
atheists is actually undermining the integrity of our 1st Amendment
guaranteed freedoms:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Reposting this will not make your interpretation correct.
Ah, an unsubstantiated, leading rebuttal. But that's understandably
the best a separationist can do with respect to the points I made.
I've explained to you that you haven't made any points. Feel free to
respond to those comments instead of ducking them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussionfails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 10:23:49 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
However, condoning the unconstitutional application by activist Judges
of the 1st Amendment's prohibitions of certain federal government
powers to the State governments in the name of the 14th Amendment's
protection of personal rights, activist judges, separationists and
atheists is actually undermining the integrity of our 1st Amendment
guaranteed freedoms:
7 of the sitting justices disagree with you - probably eight but we
can;t be sure about Roberts. Are they all activists?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 11:46:19 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
Fred, has it sunk in yet that the 1942 opinion you rely on became a
dissenting opinion in the 1943 rehearing? That the language you rely
on HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 12:23:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
fred wrote:
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
Fred, has it sunk in yet that the 1942 opinion you rely on became a
dissenting opinion in the 1943 rehearing? That the language you rely
on HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE?
America has a constitutional form of government. The medieval,
judge-centered, common law system that you are inadvertently referring
to was rendered obsolete when the Consitution was ratified. From
Jefferson's writings:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
In modern terms, "blank by construction," means blank by activist Court
precedents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 12:47:26 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 16:23:10 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131322989.961652.233500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote:
fred wrote:
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
Fred, has it sunk in yet that the 1942 opinion you rely on became a
dissenting opinion in the 1943 rehearing? That the language you rely
on HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE?
America has a constitutional form of government. The medieval,
judge-centered, common law system that you are inadvertently referring
to was rendered obsolete when the Consitution was ratified. From
Jefferson's writings:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson
to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419
In modern terms, "blank by construction," means blank by activist Court
precedents.
You really have no idea how our government or legal system works.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:32:23 AM |
|
|
fred wrote:
cptbanjo@aol.com wrote:
fred wrote:
Again, the Opelika opinion shows that Justices are actually supposed to
balance the 10th Amendment protected sovereign powers of the States
with the 14th Amendment's protection of personal federal rights:
Fred, has it sunk in yet that the 1942 opinion you rely on became a
dissenting opinion in the 1943 rehearing? That the language you rely
on HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE?
America has a constitutional form of government. The medieval,
judge-centered, common law system that you are inadvertently referring
to was rendered obsolete when the Consitution was ratified.
You pathetic ignoramus. Marbury v. Madison is over 200 years old.
Live with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 06:59:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:27:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<rmism1ph5a8dr5bpsicsp721cq6mh7pjna@4ax.com>:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals
Exactly right, Freddie
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
I'm not aware of any so-called Judeo-Christian philosophy that supports
what our country did to start itself. Could you tell me where such a
philosophy supports democracy or the rights of minorities or any of the
other rights that we have?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:04:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:59:39 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
I'm not aware of any so-called Judeo-Christian philosophy that supports
what our country did to start itself.
In a nutshell, the right of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"
comes from Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY
The mechanism of implementing it is Judeo-Christian THEOLOGY
It was a unique basis for underpinning the foundation of a Nation.
Prior rights were granted by a human.
BTW, even the most ardent anti-liberal Clinton hater, Bill O'really
looked the camera in the "eye" and admonished his conservaloons of the
distinction and suggested they were digging themselves in a hole by
referring to the foundation of AMerica on the Christian RELIGION.
He said exactly as I've stated: The foundation of the principles
this nation was founded on is Judeo-Christian Philosophy---not
Theology.
As for the 10 Commandments being the bedrock of our law-----a
prominent "founder" debunked that ***** before the constitution was
penned.
===================================================================
"The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them;
they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified
to be a law-giver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without
having recourse to supernatural intervention.*
Thomas Paine---Founder
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:29:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:59:39 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
I'm not aware of any so-called Judeo-Christian philosophy that supports
what our country did to start itself.
In a nutshell, the right of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"
comes from Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY
There are no rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in
Christianity, just repentant forgiveness for sins.
The mechanism of implementing it is Judeo-Christian THEOLOGY
It was a unique basis for underpinning the foundation of a Nation.
I haven't bought anything you've said so far, but go on.
Prior rights were granted by a human.
BTW, even the most ardent anti-liberal Clinton hater, Bill O'really
looked the camera in the "eye" and admonished his conservaloons of the
distinction and suggested they were digging themselves in a hole by
referring to the foundation of AMerica on the Christian RELIGION.
He said exactly as I've stated: The foundation of the principles
this nation was founded on is Judeo-Christian Philosophy---not
Theology.
I disagree with O'Reilly. The 1st Amendment essentially sterilized the
federal government with respect to having any power to address
religion, including Christianity, in my opinion.
As for the 10 Commandments being the bedrock of our law-----a
prominent "founder" debunked that ***** before the constitution was
penned.
===================================================================
"The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them;
they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified
to be a law-giver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without
having recourse to supernatural intervention.*
Thomas Paine---Founder
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
07 Nov 2005 03:48:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:04:44 -0700, in alt.atheism
Knickkkers@Hang-up.com wrote in
<sjgtm1tet86ksoar5n1at6d1huiksano63@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:59:39 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
The nation uses Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY as a basis for it's
inception.
I'm not aware of any so-called Judeo-Christian philosophy that supports
what our country did to start itself.
In a nutshell, the right of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"
comes from Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY
Please provide a citation to support this claim.
The mechanism of implementing it is Judeo-Christian THEOLOGY
Cite?
It was a unique basis for underpinning the foundation of a Nation.
Possibly, but I don't see where Christianity had anything to do with it.
Could you explain?
Prior rights were granted by a human.
Or so they claimed.
BTW, even the most ardent anti-liberal Clinton hater, Bill O'really
looked the camera in the "eye" and admonished his conservaloons of the
distinction and suggested they were digging themselves in a hole by
referring to the foundation of AMerica on the Christian RELIGION.
He said exactly as I've stated: The foundation of the principles
this nation was founded on is Judeo-Christian Philosophy---not
Theology.
I don't know that it makes sense to accept O'Reilly's statements as
accurate or useful.
As for the 10 Commandments being the bedrock of our law-----a
prominent "founder" debunked that ***** before the constitution was
penned.
===================================================================
"The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them;
they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified
to be a law-giver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without
having recourse to supernatural intervention.*
Thomas Paine---Founder
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 06:08:11 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131259695.217916.249920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals or that the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to legislate religion for the States since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
Separationists and atheists don't understand that the 14th Amendment,
not the outcome driven Everson interpretation of the establishment
clause, is what protects their personal federal rights from the
Christian right who can reasonably be expected to get overzealous with
the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the States to legislate
religion.
Again, the following extract from the Opelika opinion not only shows
that the 10th Amendment is still alive and kicking, but that it is the
job of Justices to balance the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States, particularly the power to legislate religion, with the 14th
Amendment protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Yes, you have a talking point or two and will not be dissuaded from
repeating it again and again. By the way, have you read Jones v. City of
Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943) available at
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=103>
where the Supreme Court overturned the ruling from the prior year and
decided that the peddler's licenses were indeed an unreasonable burden
on the First Amendment rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 06:57:23 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
By the way, have you read Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943) available at
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=103>
where the Supreme Court overturned the ruling from the prior year and
decided that the peddler's licenses were indeed an unreasonable burden
on the First Amendment rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Fred would like to pretend that case doesn't exist, including the
acknowledgement in the majority opinion, "The First Amendment, which
the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states..." So much for Fred's
inane claim that Opelika somehow overruled Cantwell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 08:28:30 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131259695.217916.249920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals or that the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to legislate religion for the States since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
Separationists and atheists don't understand that the 14th Amendment,
not the outcome driven Everson interpretation of the establishment
clause, is what protects their personal federal rights from the
Christian right who can reasonably be expected to get overzealous with
the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the States to legislate
religion.
Again, the following extract from the Opelika opinion not only shows
that the 10th Amendment is still alive and kicking, but that it is the
job of Justices to balance the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States, particularly the power to legislate religion, with the 14th
Amendment protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Yes, you have a talking point or two and will not be dissuaded from
repeating it again and again. By the way, have you read Jones v. City of
Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943) available at
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=103>
where the Supreme Court overturned the ruling from the prior year and
decided that the peddler's licenses were indeed an unreasonable burden
on the First Amendment rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Yes, I struggled to read Opelika 1943 as I struggle to read all Court
opinions. ;^)
Yes, the ruling was overturned. However, this didn't change the
opinions of the Justices in Opelika 1942.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
06 Nov 2005 09:24:09 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 12:28:30 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131308910.725396.151140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 22:48:15 -0800, in alt.atheism
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
<1131259695.217916.249920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
alt.education removed.
The Christian right doesn't understand that the United States is not
founded on so-called Christian principals or that the 10th Amendment
reserved the power to legislate religion for the States since the 1st
Amendment explicitly prohibited this power only to Congress.
Separationists and atheists don't understand that the 14th Amendment,
not the outcome driven Everson interpretation of the establishment
clause, is what protects their personal federal rights from the
Christian right who can reasonably be expected to get overzealous with
the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the States to legislate
religion.
Again, the following extract from the Opelika opinion not only shows
that the 10th Amendment is still alive and kicking, but that it is the
job of Justices to balance the 10th Amendment sovereign powers of the
States, particularly the power to legislate religion, with the 14th
Amendment protection of personal federal rights:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." -- Jones v. City of Opelika 1942
Yes, you have a talking point or two and will not be dissuaded from
repeating it again and again. By the way, have you read Jones v. City of
Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943) available at
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=103>
where the Supreme Court overturned the ruling from the prior year and
decided that the peddler's licenses were indeed an unreasonable burden
on the First Amendment rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Yes, I struggled to read Opelika 1943 as I struggle to read all Court
opinions. ;^)
I'm glad that you read the originals and don't just take someone's word
for what they say.
Yes, the ruling was overturned. However, this didn't change the
opinions of the Justices in Opelika 1942.
When you do read a case, you need to keep the context in view. Jones v.
City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943) was a rehearing of the case from
the year before. No attorney would rely on the original language or
decision in Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 (1942) without
looking at the next year's case to see how this case affects the case
from the prior year. Nor would they ignore other cases that referred to
it and modified it since then.
As I said earlier, the Fourteenth Amendment has applied the First
Amendment and the rest of the rights in our constitution to the states
as well as to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment still keeps
the Feds from doing what they are not supposed to do (whatever that
might mean in light of modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause),
but it no longer allows the states to establish religion in any way.
That is the consensus opinion. If the Court bought your reading of the
Tenth Amendment, it would make much of the 14th Amendment a nullity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
