| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2005 04:07:33 PM |
| Object: |
O'Connor retires |
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court, Replacement Must Respect
Individual Freedom, Says Americans United
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=ZvBj1BWi98oBDlqH_-aJAQ..
Friday, July 1, 2005
Justice Followed Centrist Tendencies On Church And State, AU's Lynn
Notes
TAKE ACTION!
Tell the Senate to carefully advise and review President Bush's
nomination to replace Justice O'Connor
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=_vrF_M1H0KlkPNhQgDo8Xw..
-and-
Urge President Bush to pick a unifying Supreme Court nominee to
replace Justice O'Connor
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=YuxuzNL4x0KKVzHh6wfILQ..
CONTACT
Press:
Joseph Conn, Rob Boston, or Jeremy Leaming
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=IircEqXCL2g8oVIXdfM7zw..
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court, Replacement Must Respect
Individual Freedom, Says Americans United
Justice Followed Centrist Tendencies On Church And State, AU's Lynn
Notes
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation is likely to have a dramatic
effect on the future direction of the Supreme Court and her
replacement must be a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights,
according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"Justice O'Connor was a key swing vote on church and state and
many other social issues," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans
United executive director. "We must insist that President Bush
replace her with a nominee who respects individual freedom.
"O'Connor was a conservative," Lynn continued, "but she
saw the complexity of church-state issues and tried to choose a course
that respected the country's religious diversity. Her resignation
potentially opens the door to the greatest change in the court's
direction in modern history."
Lynn noted that O'Connor's support for separation of church and state
was not consistent.
She ruled against government-sponsored religion in public schools
but supported tax subsidies to private religious schools through
vouchers and other forms of aid. Most recently, she opposed government
display of the Ten Commandments in a pair of decisions handed down
earlier this week.
O'Connor was a strong supporter of free exercise of religion and
opposed efforts to give the government increased power to curb
religious practices.
Lynn said Bush should avoid selecting an extreme nominee who will
unleash a bitterly divisive battle over his or her confirmation.
Said Lynn, "The best way to make sure this process works is for
the president to seek the advice of Senators from both parties and
select a mainstream nominee who can achieve broad, bi-partisan
support, just as presidents from both parties have done in the past.
"During the 2000 election, President Bush said he admires
justices like Antonin Scalia," Lynn said. "Putting another
Scalia on the high court would be a mistake. It would only escalate
already divisive 'culture war' issues and spark a string of decisions
that could fragment Americans along religious lines."
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in
Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans
about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding
religious freedom.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
AUcorbin@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
01 Jul 2005 05:54:48 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
02 Jul 2005 10:06:13 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome to
totalitarian dictatorship. Check your freedom at the door.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
02 Jul 2005 12:09:09 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe v. Wade
would not kill America. In fact it would begin the process of restoring
America to the Republic form of government it is supposed to be. Abortion
would still be legal in most if not all states, the only difference is it
would be controlled by the people and the states, and not the feds. Abortion
is not a federal issue, but a people and state issue, to be addressed at the
state level.
No one is saying that abortion does not serve a purpose, especially in the
case of harm to the mother or child in question, rape, and incest.
But since you cannot think for yourself, and only repeat what you are told
from the leftists who control you, you are unable to see the real issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 12:37:57 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe v. Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would. It would mean that one of our most precious freedoms - the
right to choose - will be no more. And that means all our freedoms are on
the chopping block. Then we would all be slaves to the State. Bye bye
freedom. Hello Communism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 12:58:48 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 01:37:24 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cevgha513u278@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome
to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom. If freedom is taken away,
America is dead.
And yes, Dana, they will also take away your freedom to lick women's butts
and feet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 01:44:35 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da8130$q1b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cevgha513u278@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead.
Welcome
to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe
v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom. If freedom is taken
away,
America is dead.
And freedom is being taken away when 5 unelected liberal justices make law
from the bench.
That will no longer be the case when Bush nominates and places another
Conservative or two on the bench.
Heck I say impeach Ginsburg and Souter and make it an even 4 that Bush can
replace
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 04:56:15 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cf26d9nirmcb7@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da8130$q1b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cevgha513u278@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead.
Welcome
to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe
v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom. If freedom is taken
away,
America is dead.
And freedom is being taken away when 5 unelected liberal justices make law
from the bench.
No, it is taken away when 5 unelected CONSERVATIVE justices legislate from
the bench.
If Dubya appoints a conservative, he will ignore the constitution, as
conservatives do (and indeed must), and take away our most precious rights,
such as abortion.
But we freedom-lovers will fight you freedom-haters every step of the way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 02:43:16 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da8cns$rl$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cf26d9nirmcb7@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da8130$q1b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cevgha513u278@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead.
Welcome
to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in
Roe
v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom. If freedom is taken
away,
America is dead.
And freedom is being taken away when 5 unelected liberal justices make
law
from the bench.
No,
Yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
08 Jul 2005 10:55:21 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da8130$q1b$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cevgha513u278@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da7tjh$onp$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cdide5gec0h56@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead.
Welcome
to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe
v.
Wade
would not kill America.
Yes it would.
Not even close.
Grow up.
America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom. If freedom is taken
away,
America is dead.
And freedom is being taken away when 5 unelected liberal justices make law
from the bench.
1. Seven of the nine justices are republican appointments.
It has been thus for at least 30 years.
2. Right wing justices make law from the bench and you
don't mind it.
That will no longer be the case when Bush nominates and places another
Conservative or two on the bench.
Because you like it when right wing justice--like Scalia--
make law from the bench.
Heck I say impeach Ginsburg and Souter and make it an even 4 that Bush can
replace
Maybe you should just find a country you like better instead
of advocating turning this one into a one party government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
08 Jul 2005 10:47:10 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da6ah2$4lg$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
If that day were ever to come, America would truly be dead. Welcome to
totalitarian dictatorship.
Get a grip. removing the unconstitutional decision reached in Roe v. Wade
would not kill America.
"unconstitutional decision" begs the question, a logical fallacy.
In fact it would begin the process of restoring
America to the Republic form of government it is supposed to be. Abortion
would still be legal in most if not all states,
Just like it was before, huh?
the only difference is it
would be controlled by the people and the states, and not the feds. Abortion
is not a federal issue,
No, a Constitutional one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
01 Jul 2005 06:00:43 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<11cbi9ie8co4o6a@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented Dana
broadcast on alt.atheism:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4cbc1d07gu7fb3t0q3kc0lac0ectva4du@4ax.com...
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court
Say goodbye to Roe v. Wade
and every other vestige of liberty and equality before the law.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
05 Jul 2005 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
"Native American" <NativeAmerican@earthlink.net> wrote:
:|What utter Leftist nonsense! For almost the entire history of the United
:|States, it has been illegal to kill live human babies, yet there was PLENTY
:|of liberty and equality to be had in America. Then a tiny handful of
:|screwball lawyers decided that THEY thought it should suddenly be legal to
:|kill live human babies. The AMERICAN PEOPLE didn't decide that; just a few
:|lawyers decided it, even though the Constitution NOWHERE says it is "legal
:|to kill live human babies if you want to".
Are You talking about abortion?
If you are you need to do your homework
ABOUT ABORTION:
A matter of historical fact, abortion were perfectly legal in this country
at the time of the framing of the Constitution, its ratification, framing
of the BORs and their ratification. Abortion remained legal for approx 100
year after that, and was perfectly acceptable to the churches of the day,
so long as such took place before the "quickening" which usually was around
the 4th or sometimes 5th month.
Interesting side note as to why pressure was finally mounted to declare
such illegal is that it was pure politics. The relatively new AMA wanted to
drive wet nurses out of business, wanted to force doctors to join their
organizations, so they began courting politicians with money etc. Said
politicians then passed laws that made wet nurses illegal, abortions
illegal, unless performed by a doctor or at his advice, etc.
Here is one source:
Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, by James
C. Mohr. Oxford University Press, (1978 -- hardback, 1979--paperback)
ISBN 0-19-502616-0
Chapters are as follows:
Abortion in America, 1800 - 1825
The First Wave of Abortion Legislation, 1821 - 1841
The Great Upsurge of Abortion, 1840 - 1880
The Social Character of Abortion in America, 1840 - 1880
The Transitional Legislation of, 1840 - 1860
The Physicians Crusade Against Abortion, 1857 - 1880
Public Opinion and the Abortion Issue, 1860 - 1880
Anti-Abortion Legislation, 1860 - 1880
Anti-Abortion as American Policy, 1880 -1900
Appendices
Case Studies from Medical Publications Involving Abortions in the
United States, 1839 - 1879
Case Studies from Medical Publications Involving Abortions in the
United States, 1880 - 1900
Anti-Abortion Activity on the part of State and Local Medical Societies.
==================================================
Another source is:
Intimate Matters, A History Of Sexuality In America, by John D'Emilio &
Estelle B. Freedman, Perennial Library (1988)
:|And did "quickening" change from that
:|time to now? 5th month is very late for that to happen.
Ahhhh, I believe that I said
:|>Abortion remained legal for approx 100
:|>year after that, and was perfectly acceptable to the churches of the day,
:|>so long as such took place before the "quickening" which usually was around
:|>the 4th or sometimes 5th month.
Kindly note my reference to the **4th** or **sometimes** 5th month.
You left out all reference to 4th in your comment.
--------- ----------- --------- ----
Although few women left records of their abortion experiences, other
sources suggest that the incidence of abortion increased significantly in
the nineteenth century. Estimates by reformers show that between 1800 and
1830, one abortion occurred for every twenty-five to thirty-five live
births. By the 1850s the proportion had increased to as many as one
abortion per every five to six live births. Some doctors pointed to higher
rates of stillbirths as proof that more women were using abortifacients. It
is possible that abortion began to supplant infanticide as a last resort
for women who could not raise children. In at least one city, infanticide
rates decreased markedly during the late nineteenth century.(25) Many
doctors attributed the increase in abortions to married women who wished to
limit family size, rather than to the traditional clients, unmarried women
seeking to avoid the stigma of illegitimate birth. As one professor of
medicine explained in 1857, abortion now involved not only those "who have
been deceived and ensnared by the seducer" but also "the virtuous and the
intelligent wife and mother." A report issued by the Michigan Board of
health in 1878 estimated that one-third of all pregnancies in the state
ended in abortion, and that seventy to eighty percent were secured
by "prosperous and otherwise respectable married women." (26)
In the early nineteenth century, neither doctors, women, nor judges
necessarily condemned these practices as long as they were performed within
the early months of pregnancy. According to the prevalent doctrine of
"quickening," life did not begin until a woman felt the fetus move within
her, **after about three months.** (EMPHASIS MINE ) Laws enacted between
1820 and 1840 to regulate abortion retained the quickening doctrine. . .
Even when the state did prosecute for illegal abortion, the courts remained
tolerant, as was the case in Mass., where not one conviction resulted from
thrity-two abortion trials between 1849 and 1857. Between 1860 and 1890,
however, forty states and territories enacted antiabortion statues, many of
which rejected the quickening doctrine, placed limitations on
advertisements, and help transfer the authority for abortion from women to
doctors. (27) The new antiabortion laws, like the Comstock Act placed
obstacles in the way of controlling reproduction, but women and married
couples attempted to overcome them.
Intimate Matters, A History Of Sexuality In America, by John D'Emilio &
Estelle B. Freedman, Perennial Library (1988) pp 65-66.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of any legislation whatsoever on the subject of abortion in
the United States in 1800, the legal status of the practice was governed by
the traditional British common law as interpreted by the local courts of
the new American states. For centuries prior to 1800 the key to the common
law's attitude toward abortion had been a phenomenon associated with normal
gestation known as quickening. Quickening was the first perception of fetal
movement by the pregnant woman herself. **Quickening generally occurred
near the midpoint of gestation, late in the fourth or early in the fifth
month, though it could and still does vary a good deal from one woman to
another.** (EMPHASIS MINE) The common law did not formally recognize the
existence of a fetus in criminal cases until it had quickened. After
quickening, the expulsion and destruction of a fetus without due cause was
considered a crime, because the fetus itself had manifested some semblance
of a separate existence: the ability to move. The crime was qualitatively
different from the destruction of a human being, however, and punished less
harshly. Before quickening, actions that had the effect of terminating what
turned out to have been an early pregnancy were not considered criminal
under the common law in effect in England and the United States in 1800.'
Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, by James
C. Mohr. Oxford University Press, (1978 -- hardback, 1979--paperback) pp
3-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Leee Smith contributed the following:
Quickening: "Mothers who have already felt movement in a previous
pregnancy are usually able to perceive quickening earlier (at
approximately 16 weeks) while first time mothers feel it a bit later (at
18 weeks).
Pregnancy is 10 lunar months long, approximately 280 days. 16 wks would
equal four lunar months and 18 would be half way thru the 5th lunar month.
quickening:
forgot to include the url:
http://www.parentsplace.com/pregnancy/trimester2/qa/0,3105,13224,00.html
16 weeks from LMP would be about 14 weeks
12 weeks would be a full three LUNAR months. 16 weeks would be four full
LUNAR months.
14 weeks would be smack dab in the middle of the fourth lunar month.
As the website I posted indicated, many women, especially those pregnant
for the first time, have difficulty distinguishing between bowel rumblings
and fetal rumblings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
01 Jul 2005 07:56:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court, Replacement Must Respect
Individual Freedom, Says Americans United
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=ZvBj1BWi98oBDlqH_-aJAQ..
Friday, July 1, 2005
Justice Followed Centrist Tendencies On Church And State, AU's Lynn
Notes
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation is likely to have a dramatic
effect on the future direction of the Supreme Court and her
replacement must be a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights,
according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Wait a minute, are you sure you nutcases want a strong supporter for
the Bill of Rights? A strong supporter would seperate state rights and
individule rights from the BofR's, since individule rights is the only
rights the 14th amendment addresses....which would leave the
establishment clause where it has always been found, a limitiation upon
congress to make laws respecting religion.
tsk tsk tsk you loons better think that over again :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
02 Jul 2005 01:18:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 19:56:47 -0500, The Bandit wrote
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court, Replacement Must Respect
Individual Freedom, Says Americans United
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=ZvBj1BWi98oBDlqH_-aJAQ..
Friday, July 1, 2005
Justice Followed Centrist Tendencies On Church And State, AU's Lynn
Notes
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation is likely to have a dramatic
effect on the future direction of the Supreme Court and her
replacement must be a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights,
according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Wait a minute, are you sure you nutcases want a strong supporter for
the Bill of Rights? A strong supporter would seperate state rights and
individule rights from the BofR's, since individule rights is the only
rights the 14th amendment addresses....which would leave the
establishment clause where it has always been found, a limitiation upon
congress to make laws respecting religion.
tsk tsk tsk you loons better think that over again :-)
LOL!
Think /that/ over?
Is that a DeLay imitation?
Please diagram your second sentence and turn it in to your
parole officer.
What type of bandit are you?
From your writing, I would guess that you're major crime
and chief source of income is shoplifting.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business professor at
Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls
our President as "not just as a terrible student but as
spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DocumentsIllustrative" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
02 Jul 2005 08:39:26 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEEB9BFD00463F530D2042C0@news.giganews.com...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 19:56:47 -0500, The Bandit wrote
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
O'Connor Was Swing Vote On High Court, Replacement Must Respect
Individual Freedom, Says Americans United
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=ZvBj1BWi98oBDlqH_-aJAQ..
Friday, July 1, 2005
Justice Followed Centrist Tendencies On Church And State, AU's Lynn
Notes
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation is likely to have a dramatic
effect on the future direction of the Supreme Court and her
replacement must be a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights,
according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Wait a minute, are you sure you nutcases want a strong supporter for
the Bill of Rights? A strong supporter would seperate state rights and
individule rights from the BofR's, since individule rights is the only
rights the 14th amendment addresses....which would leave the
establishment clause where it has always been found, a limitiation upon
congress to make laws respecting religion.
tsk tsk tsk you loons better think that over again :-)
LOL!
Think /that/ over?
Is that a DeLay imitation?
Please diagram your second sentence and turn it in to your
parole officer.
What type of bandit are you?
From your writing, I would guess that you're major crime
and chief source of income is shoplifting.
Actually, there is nothing in the 14th amendment concerning rights - just
privileges and immunities. And, since when did the BOR (more accurately just
"further" restrictions on Congress, according to its actual intent and
legislative preamble) change into a Bill Of "Privileges" (obviously for
convenience only, and to avoid contradiction and repugnancy of the
Constitution by the Doctrine of Incorporation, which was itself concocted by
a handful of lawless activist black robed lawyers.)
How can you have it both ways? It's a Bill Of Rights one moment, and a Bill
of Privileges and Immunities the next moment so as to allow the fictitious
Doctrine of Incorporation to persist.
And, for that matter, since when did such "further" restrictions on Congress
(the Bill of Rights) turn into "Congressional Powers" - other than by means
of, and with the help of, a corrupt and lawless USSC?
Take the most recent ruling concerning the taking of private property? The
5th Amendment has been turned on its ear and transformed from a limitation
on Congressional Power into a General Power for all governments, from the US
to the small municipality in any state!
Is this what we want more of? Is this upholding the Bill of Rights? I think
(know) not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 03:22:44 AM |
|
|
DocumentsIllustrative wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the 14th amendment concerning rights - just
privileges and immunities. And, since when did the BOR (more accurately just
"further" restrictions on Congress, according to its actual intent and
legislative preamble) change into a Bill Of "Privileges" (obviously for
convenience only, and to avoid contradiction and repugnancy of the
Constitution by the Doctrine of Incorporation, which was itself concocted by
a handful of lawless activist black robed lawyers.)
Well the 14th never was intended to "incorporate" anything upon the
states, Bingham was much smarter then modern supreme court justices and
knew the amendment would be invalid if it was just intended to overturn
state laws because Bingham was smart enough to know citizens have a
privilege or immunity to not be exempt from state law. The law also
says nothing about the "Bill of Rights." It says "privileges and
immunities."
The 14th had to have some purpose other than interfering with reserved
state and its citizens rights, which fortuantly it did: its purpose was
to set the stage for Congress to target the "states" with new civil
rights legislation.
Unfortuantly liberal justices has striped its purpose away which in
return gives us unpredcitable results that has no constitutional
juriprudence.
Bingham also said at least 5 times that the 14th amendment was not
intened or to be used to strike down any state rights because he
understood the constitutional limitations involved.
Take the most recent ruling concerning the taking of private property? The
5th Amendment has been turned on its ear and transformed from a limitation
on Congressional Power into a General Power for all governments, from the US
to the small municipality in any state!
All states and cities have their own condemination laws, so really the
5th amendments takings clause is of of no relevence on a state level.
Bingham talked about the taking of property while discussing his 14th
amendment by arguing the equal protection clause would prevent states
from taking a black man's property for little compensation while paying
fair price for whites. The 14th made sure state laws, whatever they
were, could not be applied unequally. So if a white man receives just
compensation so must the black man under state law. Of course, the
constitution could not protect anyone from a state who decided to pay
half-price only, but if they did it had to apply to all class of
citizens....but this is moot because no state or city would never want
to face the angry backlash from their citizens if they ever tried such
a thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DocumentsIllustrative" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 10:39:38 AM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote in message
news:1120378964.856888.131140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
DocumentsIllustrative wrote:
Actually, there is nothing in the 14th amendment concerning rights -
just
privileges and immunities. And, since when did the BOR (more accurately
just
"further" restrictions on Congress, according to its actual intent and
legislative preamble) change into a Bill Of "Privileges" (obviously for
convenience only, and to avoid contradiction and repugnancy of the
Constitution by the Doctrine of Incorporation, which was itself
concocted by
a handful of lawless activist black robed lawyers.)
Well the 14th never was intended to "incorporate" anything upon the
states, Bingham was much smarter then modern supreme court justices and
knew the amendment would be invalid if it was just intended to overturn
state laws because Bingham was smart enough to know citizens have a
privilege or immunity to not be exempt from state law. The law also
says nothing about the "Bill of Rights." It says "privileges and
immunities."
The 14th had to have some purpose other than interfering with reserved
state and its citizens rights, which fortuantly it did: its purpose was
to set the stage for Congress to target the "states" with new civil
rights legislation.
Unfortuantly liberal justices has striped its purpose away which in
return gives us unpredcitable results that has no constitutional
juriprudence.
Bingham also said at least 5 times that the 14th amendment was not
intened or to be used to strike down any state rights because he
understood the constitutional limitations involved.
Bingo! It is quite apparent that you know full well that one part of the
Constitution cannot be cast aside in preference for another part in order to
(falsely) substantiate or impose credibility to the wrongful interpretation
of another. This is what is so disturbing to "informed" Americans, to wit,
that allegedly well qualified lawyers (including members of Congress) that
are entrusted to uphold the Constitution (not their political views and
personal feelings) routinely, in violation of their oaths, blatantly
disregard one or more parts of the Constitution in an attempt to steer the
ignorant well clear of the inherent contradictions in their activist
rulings - something more akin to "Bad Behavior" than to that of good
behavior.
Further proof of this kind of lawlessness in our government and arrogant
disregard of the Constriction has been blatantly admitted to, and
essentially paraded in front of the cameras, by U.S. Representative Henry J.
Hyde, July 1987, before the Senate and House select committees with no
consequence, in which he said:
"...we in Congress--now we have a way of dealing with laws we don't
like... you exempt yourself."
"Public Law 95-435, which was passed some years ago, says that we can't
spend any more money than we take in. That is as ignored as the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution."
"...if we can't ignore the law or exempt ourselves from it, we play
games with the process."
Another thing to consider by others that espouse the misguided premise that
re-interpretation is not repugnant to the Constitution: The framers of our
Constitution categorically state that the Constitution is a contract or
agreement. Knowing this, and considering the history of how the USSC has
been espousing the Constitution, would anyone (just hypothetically) in their
right mind be comfortable entering into a contract or agreement with the
USSC knowing full well that the words within your agreement will be at the
mercy of the personal and political views of the other parties [USSC] and
that there is no higher order to appeal to when said agreement is obviously
violated, parts and pieces arbitrarily set aside that get in the way,
rendering meaningless and having no weight, the words in said document that
all parties originally agreed to so that their [USSC's] faction(s) may
benefit at your expense with total disregard to your "true" rights,
privileges and immunities under said agreement?
Take the most recent ruling concerning the taking of private property?
The
5th Amendment has been turned on its ear and transformed from a
limitation
on Congressional Power into a General Power for all governments, from
the US
to the small municipality in any state!
All states and cities have their own condemination laws, so really the
5th amendments takings clause is of of no relevence on a state level.
Exactly! The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant and should have had no barring
or weight in the matter. Ironically, the USSC chose to ignore the
Constitution of the State of Connecticut and place the entire weight on the
U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment clause, thus transforming it from a
restriction on congressional power into an alleged power to allow the State
to take property contrary to the State's own laws. From the CONSTITUTION OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT:
ARTICLE FIRST. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 8. No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty "or property" without due process of law,."
SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for "public use,"
without just compensation therefor.
ARTICLE XVII: Section 8 No person shall be compelled to give evidence
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty "or property" without due
process of law,."
ARTICLE XXIX: Article seventeen of the amendments to the constitution
is amended to read as follows: a. No person shall be compelled to give
evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty "or property"
without due process of law,."
It would seem, based on the twisted logic used in expounding law today, that
since the land is being taken for "private use" and because there is no
mention of restrictions of such [private use] in the constitutions of the
U.S. or in that of any State, that no compensation is really required and
any such compensation is no more than a gift, the actual law of contracts to
the contrary notwithstanding.
Bingham talked about the taking of property while discussing his 14th
amendment by arguing the equal protection clause would prevent states
from taking a black man's property for little compensation while paying
fair price for whites. The 14th made sure state laws, whatever they
were, could not be applied unequally. So if a white man receives just
compensation so must the black man under state law. Of course, the
constitution could not protect anyone from a state who decided to pay
half-price only, but if they did it had to apply to all class of
citizens....but this is moot because no state or city would never want
to face the angry backlash from their citizens if they ever tried such
a thing.
This is why, if the land truly is of such value to the City or the Private
Property Developer, then the "acquisition" of said property should have been
achieved using free negotiation and business practices and NOT the abusive
misuse of the courts in order to strong-arm the property away from the
rightful property owner. Just like in any business transaction, if said
property over the course of 10 years, for example, is worth a million
dollars, then such compensation should have been properly negotiated in a
manner no different than if one was selling his/her business or other
investment. That which happened instead was to use the courts to effectively
"steal" the property from the owner at well below that which it was actually
worth to the private developer over the stated term of years in the
developer's business financials pro-forma. This was nothing more than a
devious business transaction executed by a thieving developer.
Under the right of "Equal Protection," the 14th Amendment, in this case,
should have actually "protected" the property owner from such abuse, and not
used to the contrary!
This is a textbook example of why the "bad behavior" clause was inserted
into the U.S. Constitution and why, perhaps, it is time to seriously think
about impeaching a USSC justice -- as at least one (if not more) can no
longer be trusted with the document to which he has been entrusted to
uphold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
03 Jul 2005 12:56:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:39, Doc Illustrative wrote:
Further proof of this kind of lawlessness in our government and arrogant
disregard of the Constriction has been blatantly admitted to, and
essentially paraded in front of the cameras, by U.S. Representative Henry J.
Hyde, July 1987, before the Senate and House select committees with no
consequence, in which he said:
"...we in Congress--now we have a way of dealing with laws we don't
like... you exempt yourself."
"Public Law 95-435, which was passed some years ago, says that we can't
spend any more money than we take in. That is as ignored as the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution."
"...if we can't ignore the law or exempt ourselves from it, we play
games with the process."
Yo, Wayne! You sorta forgot your citations.
There's a smell emanating from these quotations
supposedly made by Representative Hyde.
What the devil is ". . . before the Senate and House select
committees with no consequence . . ."?
What "select committees"? [lowercase]
There's all sorts of "select committees" but there aren't
any whose title is "select committees". [lowercase]
Representative Hyde has been ranking Republican on the
House Select Committee on Intelligence, chair for several
years on the House Judiciary Committee and member of the
International Relations Committee.
But - Representative Hyde's webpage gives no indication of
having - "essentially paraded in front of the cameras" -
the quotations that have almost no net presence. In fact, .
.. . . . .
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
The Constitution and Bill of Rights
[void where prohibited by law]
.
|
|
|
| User: "DocumentsIllustrative" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
09 Jul 2005 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEED90E9001B56BD1335C960@news.giganews.com...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:39, Doc Illustrative wrote:
Further proof of this kind of lawlessness in our government and arrogant
disregard of the Constriction has been blatantly admitted to, and
essentially paraded in front of the cameras, by U.S. Representative
Henry J.
Hyde, July 1987, before the Senate and House select committees with no
consequence, in which he said:
"...we in Congress--now we have a way of dealing with laws we don't
like... you exempt yourself."
"Public Law 95-435, which was passed some years ago, says that we
can't
spend any more money than we take in. That is as ignored as the 10th
Amendment to the Constitution."
"...if we can't ignore the law or exempt ourselves from it, we play
games with the process."
Yo, Wayne! You sorta forgot your citations.
I apologize for being vague. I will substantiate with citations below.
There's a smell emanating from these quotations
supposedly made by Representative Hyde.
The smell is quite real, and he did indeed make these statements. Please
keep reading...
What the devil is ". . . before the Senate and House select
committees with no consequence . . ."?
Concerning "consequence," no one seemed to have cared at the time. It was
just glossed over and forgotten about. As you have discovered, you cannot
even find it on the net today.
What "select committees"? [lowercase]
He made these statements before both Senate and House select committees
during "joint" hearings. They were the, "Senate Select Committee on Secrete
Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition" and the "House
Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran," One
Hundredth Congress, First Session, July 10th, 13th and 14th, 1987.
There's all sorts of "select committees" but there aren't
any whose title is "select committees". [lowercase]
I do not recall implying, with the use of case or otherwise, that there were
any committees whose title is "select committees," hence (I think) my proper
use of lowercase that I used in "select committees." (In any case, I do not
think this is important enough to quibble about, so lets just forget about
it.)
Representative Hyde has been ranking Republican on the
House Select Committee on Intelligence, chair for several
years on the House Judiciary Committee and member of the
International Relations Committee.
But - Representative Hyde's webpage gives no indication of
having - "essentially paraded in front of the cameras" -
the quotations that have almost no net presence. In fact, .
. . . . .
Also, try this link:
http://www.documentsillustrative.com/Documents/Iran-Contra_Cover/iran-contra_cover.html
I Put the cover of the Joint Hearings transcript on this site, so you can
see that it is real, along with pages 95 - 101, which are the most pertinent
that have to do with Henry Hyde's statements. Start reading from the top of
page 98 of the transcripts. The direct link is:
http://www.documentsillustrative.com/Documents/Iran-Contra_p98/iran-contra_p98.html
I too have looked everywhere on the internet and could not find these pages
anywhere, so I scanned the ones I got from Henry Hyde's office and put them
on this site. According to his office, these transcripts were kind of
popular at the time because it took me many calls and more then six months
to get a hold of them!
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
The Constitution and Bill of Rights
[void where prohibited by law]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
05 Jul 2005 12:13:21 PM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|Well the 14th never was intended to "incorporate" anything upon the
:|states, Bingham was much smarter then modern supreme court justices and
:|knew the amendment would be invalid if it was just intended to overturn
:|state laws because Bingham was smart enough to know citizens have a
:|privilege or immunity to not be exempt from state law. The law also
:|says nothing about the "Bill of Rights." It says "privileges and
:|immunities."
* Fourteenth Amendment
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
05 Jul 2005 11:18:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
***************************************************************
. . . 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 initial language proposed by James Madison during the first
Congress would merely have prohibited the federal government from
establishing a national religion. After several members of Congress
expressed concern that the proposed language did not do enough to
protect existing state-established religions, the language was changed
to prohibit the federal government from making any law "respecting" an
establishment of religion, thus accomplishing the twin purposes of
prohibiting the establishment of a national religion and of preventing
federal interference with the existing state churches. And there is
your page from history that demostrates you have more then a few screws
lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
08 Jul 2005 06:17:43 AM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> ***************************************************************
:|>
:|> . . . 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 initial language proposed by James Madison during the first
:|Congress would merely have prohibited the federal government from
:|establishing a national religion.
Gee, I see you saying that but I don't see you providing any information to
support it.
Let's see what he originally proposed:
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be
inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged
on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion
be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a
well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
compelled to render military service in person.
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of
the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Now, let's look at how Madison defined national religion, shall we?
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
Now in going further, note he addressed religion on the following fronts
originally
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief
or worship,
nor shall any national religion be established,
nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
any pretext, infringed.
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to
render military service in person.
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience,
Do you really believe that each and everyone of those only pertained to
establishing a national religion no matter how YOU might define that term?
You do notice that he was aiming at both the general government and STATE
GOVERNMENTS too
Continuing with your theory, how do you explain how on earth any or all of
these three things he would later veto established a national religion if
that was all he was concerned about or wanted to prevent
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
You will have a difficult time since none of those have anything to do with
a national religion
Now how about during the Cont Convention when he claimed the proposed
amendments against the states was in his opinion the most important one?
How does that jive with your theory he only wanted to prevent a national
religion?
It doesn't because that was not all he was trying to prevent
:|After several members of Congress
:|expressed concern that the proposed language did not do enough to
:|protect existing state-established religions, the language was changed
:|to prohibit the federal government from making any law "respecting" an
:|establishment of religion, thus accomplishing the twin purposes of
:|prohibiting the establishment of a national religion and of preventing
:|federal interference with the existing state churches. And there is
:|your page from history that demostrates you have more then a few screws
:|lose.
Don't try to snow me about church state history in this country, you don't
know enough as your comments here display.
James Madison was a strict separationist and that included the national and
state levels
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
08 Jul 2005 07:26:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> ***************************************************************
:|>
:|> . . . 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 initial language proposed by James Madison during the first
:|Congress would merely have prohibited the federal government from
:|establishing a national religion.
Gee, I see you saying that but I don't see you providing any information to
support it.
Annals of Congress, first session pages 434-435:
"Mr. Madison thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before
religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He
believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence,
or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would
compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was
introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was
intended to prevent."
According to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story the reason was, ". . .
to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."
Let's see what he originally proposed:
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be
inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged
on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion
be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Wasn't Madison's initial draft rejected by the Senate and that's why
you don't see his original draft today for the reasons cited above?
uh huh.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: O'Connor retires |
11 Jul 2005 11:31:45 AM |
|
|
"The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> >:|> ***************************************************************
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> . . . 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 initial language proposed by James Madison during the first
:|> >:|Congress would merely have prohibited the federal government from
:|> >:|establishing a national religion.
:|>
:|>
:|> Gee, I see you saying that but I don't see you providing any information to
:|> support it.
:|>
:|
:|Annals of Congress, first session pages 434-435:
:|
:|"Mr. Madison thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before
:|religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He
:|believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence,
:|or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would
:|compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was
:|introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was
:|intended to prevent."
:|
:|According to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story the reason was, ". . .
:|to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."
:|
:|
:|> Let's see what he originally proposed:
:|>
:|> Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be
:|> inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged
:|> on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion
:|> be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
:|> manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
:|
:|
:|Wasn't Madison's initial draft rejected by the Senate and that's why
:|you don't see his original draft today for the reasons cited above?
:|
:|uh huh.....
Sorry dude but the above doesn't remove the following from the historical
record
:|The initial language proposed by James Madison during the first
:|Congress would merely have prohibited the federal government from
:|establishing a national religion.
Gee, I see you saying that but I don't see you providing any information to
support it.
Let's see what he originally proposed:
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be
inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged
on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion
be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a
well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
compelled to render military service in person.
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of
the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Now, let's look at how Madison defined national religion, shall we?
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
Now in going further, note he addressed religion on the following fronts
originally
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief
or worship,
nor shall any national religion be established,
nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
any pretext, infringed.
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to
render military service in person.
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience,
Do you really believe that each and everyone of those only pertained to
establishing a national religion no matter how YOU might define that term?
You do notice that he was aiming at both the general government and STATE
GOVERNMENTS too
Continuing with your theory, how do you explain how on earth any or all of
these three things he would later veto established a national religion if
that was all he was concerned about or wanted to prevent
* Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause (1811)
http://candst.tripod.com/madvetos.htm
You will have a difficult time since none of those have anything to do with
a national religion
Now how about during the Cont Convention when he claimed the proposed
amendments against the states was in his opinion the most important one?
How does that jive with your theory he only wanted to prevent a national
religion?
It doesn't because that was not all he was trying to prevent
:|After several members of Congress
:|expressed concern that the proposed language did not do enough to
:|protect existing state-established religions, the language was changed
:|to prohibit the federal government from making any law "respecting" an
:|establishment of religion, thus accomplishing the twin purposes of
:|prohibiting the establishment of a national religion and of preventing
:|federal interference with the existing state churches. And there is
:|your page from history that demostrates you have more then a few screws
:|lose.
The Legislative History of the Establishment Clause:
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
From The House of Representatives
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious
beliefs, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full
and equal rights of conscience in any manner or in any respect be
infringed."
(Civil rights, establishment, rights of conscience, broad word
establishment used )
Not accepted
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
conscience be infringed."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no laws touching religion , or infringing the
rights of conscience."
(Establishment and conscience, broad word establishment used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted
Submitted to the Senate:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(Establishment, free exercise, conscience, broad word establishment
used)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society
in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed"
(Establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience,
or establishing any religious sect or society."
(establishment of a preference, conscience, narrow non preference use
of establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of
religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
(preference establishment, free exercise, conscience, narrow use of non
preference reference to establishment)
Not accepted
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
(Establishment, free exercise, back to broad use of establishment)
Not accepted
Submitted Back to the House:
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
(establishing preference, free exercise, back to narrow non preference
use of the word establishment)
Not accepted
Joint House/senate Language:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
(establishment, free exercise, back to broad)
Accepted.
What can be said with any degree of certainty?
We do know for sure that it was to prevent the later use of the
"necessary and proper" wording from being used as a doorway to make laws
regarding religion. We know that because Madison mentions that.
We do know that it was to prevent a sects, denominations, religions
from combining and establishing religions, forcing others to go along with
the program. We know that again because Madison mentions it.
We know the obvious, that is it was meant to prevent the government
from establishing religion, a religion, a sect, a denomination as the
"official" religion of the nation.
We also know that Congress was prevented from making an law RESPECTING
an establishment of religion. We know that because those words were
eventually chosen to be used.
We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost
out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word
did have meaning that applied in this country.
"Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting
Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches
should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion
constituted an establishment of religion."
Source of Information
The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First
Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
House Rejected the Senate Version, Senate Would Not Accept The House
Version, Thus Six men, in a joint House-Senate Committee, with no records
of their discussions, debates, arguments, votes, etc took this:
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent
the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
and this
"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a
mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
and created this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'."
The joint committee left no records of their deliberations. The full
House nor Senate never voted on the Joint House-Senate Committee's final
draft. The congressional action was completed. That final draft became the
Religious Clauses of the Bill of Rights
The six men on that committee were
From the House
Chairman Madison
Sherman
Vining
From the Senate
Chairman Ellsworth
Carroll
Paterson
September, 10-19,1789--First Federal Congress (Amendments)
Commentary
On September 10, 17&19, the House received the Senate's message that it
had agreed to the House amendments, "with several amendments; to which they
desire the concurrence of this House." The House considered the subject on
September 19 and 21. On the latter date, they voted on the Senate changes.
"some of which they agreed to, and disagreed to others." The House then
resolved that "a committee of conference was desired with the Senate, on
the subject matter of the amendments disagreed to." Madison, Sherman, and
Vining (the three members who had played the largest part in the House
debate) were appointed managers on the part of the House, and Oliver
Ellsworth, Charles Carroll, and William Paterson as Senate conferees.
Some of the problems dealt with by the conferees may be seen in Madison's
letter to Pendleton (Sept 23, 1789).[see below]
On September 23. Madison made the Conference Report to the House. It
provided that the House would accept all the Senate amendments, and
provided for three further changes. The first was a minor alteration in the
amendment on representation. The third gave the final form to the Sixth
Amendment and reincluded in it the right to a jury trial of the locality
(though not restricted to the vicinage) which the Senate had omitted. The
second change made by the Conference Committee was of great importance--to
replace the weakened Senate version of the religious freedom guarantee by
the simple yet strict prohibitions of what are now the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Without a doubt, this final
version of the first guarantee of the First Amendment was written by
Madison; it repeats his earlier House version which the Senate had diluted.
As Irving Brant puts it, "Of all the versions of the religious guarantee,
this most directly covered the thing he was aiming at--absolute separation
of church and state and total exclusion of government aid to religion."
Madison's success in having the Conference Committee adopt his version of
the religious freedom guarantee marked a fitting culmination of his role in
the Bill of Rights debate.
On September 24, the House voted 37 to 14 to agree to the Conference
Report. On the same day, Ellsworth made the Conference Report to the
Senate. The next day, the Senate concurred in the amendments as voted by
the House and acquiesced in a House resolution requesting the President to
transmit copies of the amendments to the states. September 25 (the day on
which the congressional approval was completed) is celebrated as the
anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The form in which the amendments finally
passed Congress appears (infra p. 1164). Apart from the first two Articles
(which failed of state ratification), these amendments (renumbered to
reflect the non-ratification of the first two) now constitute the federal
Bill of Rights.
Source of Information
The Bill Of Rights: A Documentary History, Vol. II, Bernard Schwartz,
Chelsea House Publishers, in association with McGraw Hill Book Company,
N.Y. Toronto, London, Sydney (1971) pp 1159.
**********************************************************************************
Don't try to snow me about church state history in this country, you don't
know enough as your comments here display.
James Madison was a strict separationist and that included the national and
state levels
*************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ri | | | | | | | | | |
