| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2005 08:32:08 AM |
| Object: |
Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
:|The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive thing for
:|me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of the
:|state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
:\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
:|a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Considering where you come from and have been coming from in your posts for
the past 3 years or so that I have been aware of your posts that is not
surprising.
:|I see more of a basis of law
:|than a recital of prayer, but that's just me I suppose. I don't know or care
:|if Budha has any pearls of wisdom that can be displayed by a public entity,
:|but if he does, then so be it, let's hang them on the wall somewhere. I
:|don't think we should have to have each and every nugget of how man should
:|behave toward his fellow man on the walls of each and every court house, but
:|if a jurisdiction wants a pearl, then they should hang a pearl. My issue
:|doesn't come until they hang a pearl, then convict me because I don't
:|subscribe to the source of the wisdom. When that happens, I'll be in front
:|of the judges arguing that government is enforcing religion on me, or
:|establilshing religion if that is the mantra. Personally, I think I'd LIKE
:|to see all of the nuggets of wisdom hung from the walls of the court house
:|because then I'd have the heads-up before I went inside that the judge might
:|be looking for sorry asses like me. If I felt he was going to abuse me
:|because my religion was non-existant, or different than his, it would be
:|good for me to know he had a slant before he threw the book at me.
:|
:|The problem I see here is that the very same court ruled both in favor of
:|the 10 Commandments on public property and against the 10 Commandments on
:|public property in the span of about a half-hour. This means that each and
:|every 10 Commandments case will need to rise to the USSC to be decided. This
:|seems to me to be hugely problematic. It seems to me that there is scant
:|measuring stick that can be used to determine which kind of display is OK
:|and which isn't. It seems that the longer a display can go without challenge
:|is the measure of just how suitable it might be. This is a ***** poor
:|measuring stick, if you ask me. In Kentucky, the justices seemed to say that
:|because the display was pointed out early, then it couldn't be remedied no
:|matter how hard they tried to bring in the ***** they left out. But, in
:|Texas, the court said that because the display was there for 40 or 50 years
:|without complaint, then it must be OK. Time ought not be the yardstick that
:|the USSC uses to decide this sort of stuff. What the USSC should do is say
:|that the 10 Commandments is not a strictly religious endeavor, and is
:|therefore suitable for public displays, or it should say that it is
:|inherently religious and not suitable. My preference is for the former, but
:|I think we should have more religion of all kinds in the public sphere, not
:|less, even when the religion that comes about isn't my particular brand.
Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy, when will you learn to listen to those you want to
ignore because in your mind they aren't good conservatives or religious
right types
Some of us really do know what we are talking about
Here is some background to this
THE REAL HISTORY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PROJECT,
OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES
by Sue A. Hoffman
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm
Breyer was off base with his comments about never been challenged before.
That particular display perhaps has not been challenged earlier, but of the
same Eagles project have been challenged all over the country and lower
courts have ruled one all but one or two cases that they violated the
Constitution
Here is the real bottom line with regards to this case
***********************************************************************************
We have pictures of the 10 Commandment display and the overall display that
the 10 Commandments is just one part of on the statehouse grounds in
Austin, Texas
Check them out in the photo section of this group
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Also note that you can enlarge the pics
The 10 Commandments display is #9 on the grounds
The truth is that this display is very similar to the over all theme of the
artwork of the USSC building in DC.
Though the theme of the USSC building is histroy of law the 10 commandments
are in no way shape of form singled out or emphasized at the USSC. One can
even argue if they are truly represented there or not.
At the Austin, Texas display the 10 Commandments are only one of a number
of displays
1. Hood's Brigade
2 Heros of the Alamo
3 Confederate Soldiers
4 Volunteer firemen
5 Terry';s Texas Rangers
6 Texas Cowboy
7 "The Hiker"
8 36th Infantry
9 Ten Commandments
10 Tribute to Texas Children
11 Texas Pioneer Women
12 Statue of Liberty Replica
13 Pearl Harbor Veterans
14 Korean War Veterans
15 Soldiers of WWI
16 Disabled Veterans
17 Texas police Officers
The overall display seems to be a mixed theme, partly Texas, partly USA,
partly history, partly military, kind of random hodge podge. There is no
religious theme nor any law or history of law theme or even a govt theme.
They could have been removed and wouldn't have altered in any manner what
was still there. I can't say that they add anything to what is already
there or distract from it.
But, it is a bit hard to say positively that it represents a endorsement of
religion within the overall context the Ten Commandments marker is set.
It is just as hard, as well, to say it really belongs there. It does seem
sort of out of place there, but the over all context is such that it gave
the court an opportunity to doge that bullet just as they did with the
"under God" ruling last term.
They are getting very good at dodging the bullet.
***************************************************************************
The difference that the court hung its hat on was context between the two
cases.
Did you even bother to read the rulings, no, probably not, you seldom if
ever do.
For more information I offer you this as well
* The Ten Commandments Issues
o The Complete Ten Commandments, a Study Guide
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/10commsg.htm
The Supreme Court Draws the Correct Ten Commandments Line:
Why the Texas Display Was Constitutional, and the Kentucky Display Was Not
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
----
Wednesday, Jun. 29, 2005
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050629.html
[EXCERPT]
This week, the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in this Term's
much-watched Ten Commandments cases, McCreary and Van Orden. As many
observers anticipated, and as I predicted in a prior column, [
actually she broke it up into two columns ]
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050310.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20050322.html
the Court upheld the Texas display, but invalidated the Kentucky
display. In so doing, it dealt a blow to those who would coopt
government for their religious messages.
Observers may wonder: How can the Court say one display is
constitutional and the other is not? It's the same Ten Commandments.
[END EXCERPT]
* Two Important Establishment Clause Issues The Supreme Court Will
Decide This Term, Relating to The Ten Commandments and a Key Federal
Statute
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20041021.html
* Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments Controversy Why He Was Not A
Fit Justice, Won't Be A Fit Governor, And Belongs in the Private Sphere
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031118.html
* The Ten Commandments and American Law Why Some Christians' Claims to
Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html
* The Ten Commandments in Court: Power And Its Abuse
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020314.html
*****************************************************************************************
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: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 02:10:35 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11cb4285rg8rd82@corp.supernews.com...
"Henry \"Ham\" Hammond" <hamhammond@hotmail.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11caso2gki5uaf7@corp.supernews.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11c9b2sihleg4e5@corp.supernews.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> writes:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:t7p8c11b52vmluqbkr0l9s4hfr6l8i0psm@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the
display
of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the
states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law?
The spending of public money requires a law. To have a symbol on
public property requires spending public money on a piece of
property
that houses a religious symbol.
No sir. That one won't fly. You'll have to make a better connection
than
that.
No, he doesn't. The above is quite sufficient.
For you perhaps, but as I'm the one that asked the question, I'm the
one
he
has to give a satisfactory answer to and he hasn't given on that
satisfies
me.
Too damn bad; his answer satisfies the courts, which is what counts.
Well I guess that's it then.
Pretty much, yeah. That's how reality works.
You guys can all go home. From now on, the Q&A
will only be allowed in the courts.
No, but people who object when they get perfectly valid answers
Here is the question again. >>So how is the display of a religious symbol a
law? And more specifically how
is it a law respecting anything? <<
It has not been answered.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 02:01:27 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11cb4285rg8rd82@corp.supernews.com...
"Henry \"Ham\" Hammond" <hamhammond@hotmail.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11caso2gki5uaf7@corp.supernews.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11c9b2sihleg4e5@corp.supernews.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> writes:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:t7p8c11b52vmluqbkr0l9s4hfr6l8i0psm@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the
display
of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the
states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law?
The spending of public money requires a law. To have a symbol on
public property requires spending public money on a piece of
property
that houses a religious symbol.
No sir. That one won't fly. You'll have to make a better connection
than
that.
No, he doesn't. The above is quite sufficient.
For you perhaps, but as I'm the one that asked the question, I'm the
one
he
has to give a satisfactory answer to and he hasn't given on that
satisfies
me.
Too damn bad; his answer satisfies the courts, which is what counts.
Well I guess that's it then.
Pretty much, yeah. That's how reality works.
You guys can all go home. From now on, the Q&A
will only be allowed in the courts.
No, but people who object when they get perfectly valid answers
will be told that their answers were sufficient. Bob's original
answer as to why the first amendment applies was just fine.
No, it didn't come through the courts and it did not answer the original
question. It is not valid.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 09:59:04 AM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11c9b2sihleg4e5@corp.supernews.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> writes:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:t7p8c11b52vmluqbkr0l9s4hfr6l8i0psm@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the
states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law?
The spending of public money requires a law. To have a symbol on
public property requires spending public money on a piece of property
that houses a religious symbol.
No sir. That one won't fly. You'll have to make a better connection than
that.
No, he doesn't. The above is quite sufficient.
For you perhaps, but as I'm the one that asked the question, I'm the one he
has to give a satisfactory answer to and he hasn't given on that satisfies
me.
I am not obliged to do anything for you. When I post, I post for the
newsgroup readership, not for the person whose text I am responding to
(who might not even see my response).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 08:42:46 AM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:t7p8c11b52vmluqbkr0l9s4hfr6l8i0psm@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law?
The spending of public money requires a law. To have a symbol on
public property requires spending public money on a piece of property
that houses a religious symbol.
No sir. That one won't fly. You'll have to make a better connection than
that.
Your opinion is not only unsubstantiated, it is contradictory to court
rulings. And the court is empowered by the constitution to adjudicate
issues arising under that constitution.
And more specifically how is it a law respecting anything?
Look the word up in your dictionary. "Respecting" means "concerning,
touching upon, having anything to do with" in addition to "showing
respect" (which displaying a sacred symbol also does).
Well, in that case you've blown your other statement out of the water.
Not at all.
According to the definition, "spending of public money requires a law" bit
seems to say they have in fact made a law concerning religion
What law? There is no law authorizing the use of public funds for the
supporting the housing of religious symbols. There is also no law
allowing public property to be used for housing religious symbols.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 09:02:03 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:rrhac1pt2ddosvqr083m3nunhppvmcun4g@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:t7p8c11b52vmluqbkr0l9s4hfr6l8i0psm@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the
states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law?
The spending of public money requires a law. To have a symbol on
public property requires spending public money on a piece of property
that houses a religious symbol.
No sir. That one won't fly. You'll have to make a better connection than
that.
Your opinion is not only unsubstantiated, it is contradictory to court
rulings. And the court is empowered by the constitution to adjudicate
issues arising under that constitution.
And more specifically how is it a law respecting anything?
Look the word up in your dictionary. "Respecting" means "concerning,
touching upon, having anything to do with" in addition to "showing
respect" (which displaying a sacred symbol also does).
Well, in that case you've blown your other statement out of the water.
Not at all.
According to the definition, "spending of public money requires a law"
bit
seems to say they have in fact made a law concerning religion
What law? There is no law authorizing the use of public funds for the
supporting the housing of religious symbols. There is also no law
allowing public property to be used for housing religious symbols.
You are having trouble with that fellows question. So maybe this one will be
easier. If there is no law allowing public property to be used for housing
religious symbols, is there one that denies it? If not, then how can it be
denied? In case you are going to tell me that the constitution denies it,
let me remind you about what the constitution says about the taking of
property the doesn't seem to carry much weight either.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 10:01:37 AM |
|
|
"Henry \"Ham\" Hammond" <hamhammond@hotmail.com> wrote:
According to the definition, "spending of public money requires a law"
bit
seems to say they have in fact made a law concerning religion
What law? There is no law authorizing the use of public funds for the
supporting the housing of religious symbols. There is also no law
allowing public property to be used for housing religious symbols.
You are having trouble with that fellows question. So maybe this one will be
easier. If there is no law allowing public property to be used for housing
religious symbols, is there one that denies it?
There doesn't need to be one. In the nature of the definition of
"property", it is the right of the property owner to decide its use.
The owner of public property is the government, and no one but the
government therefore has the right to decide its use.
In case you are going to tell me that the constitution denies it,
let me remind you about what the constitution says about the taking of
property the doesn't seem to carry much weight either.
In your irrelevant opinion.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 10:13:42 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:gimac1leo86i6kvicaue67j7o32hdi8jvk@4ax.com...
"Henry \"Ham\" Hammond" <hamhammond@hotmail.com> wrote:
According to the definition, "spending of public money requires a law"
bit
seems to say they have in fact made a law concerning religion
What law? There is no law authorizing the use of public funds for the
supporting the housing of religious symbols. There is also no law
allowing public property to be used for housing religious symbols.
You are having trouble with that fellows question. So maybe this one will
be
easier. If there is no law allowing public property to be used for
housing
religious symbols, is there one that denies it?
There doesn't need to be one. In the nature of the definition of
"property", it is the right of the property owner to decide its use.
The owner of public property is the government, and no one but the
government therefore has the right to decide its use.
In case you are going to tell me that the constitution denies it,
let me remind you about what the constitution says about the taking of
property the doesn't seem to carry much weight either.
In your irrelevant opinion.
No that's not opinion, that's fact. The government took 22 acres from me and
I did not get one dime. Nada, zilch, zero. Hopefully, when the lawsuit is
settled that will change. But they did not even make an offer and when we
told them they had taken our land their very words were, "so sue us". We
did.
But back to that fellows question. Go back to the beginning of this thread
and read it carefully and see if you can answer it. He seemed to have asked
it in a gentlemanly manner.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
05 Jul 2005 12:25:29 PM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
:|news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
:|> "Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|> >Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
:|> >religious symbols on public property?
:|>
:|> "Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the states"
:|>
:|> and therefore
:|> <Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
:|>
:|So how is the display of a religious symbol a law? And more specifically how
:|is it a law respecting anything?
Perhaps you should read the establishment clause
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
************************************
RULES:
************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947 (it is based the Madison view of strict separation)
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
EVEN IF YOU DO AWAY WITH #5 WHICH is what Rehnquist
has been working to accomplish for 30 years, you still all the other
elements which would be and are still good law.
************************************
TESTS:
************************************
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause.
************************************
The LEMON TEST
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.
2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.
************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST
Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST
Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."
************************************
THE COERCION TEST
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
************************************
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject The ban is not just
on establishments of religion but on laws respecting them, a fact that
allows a law to fall short of creating an establishment yet still be
unconstitutional.
The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment, Leonard W.
Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina Press,
(1994) p. 118
*****************************************************************************************
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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 11:06:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:48:57 -0500, Clear to partly cloudy
wrote
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:oa08c1p3dkit805d7nrqs79s0d0u1vfh9q@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property?
"Public property" = "funded by laws passed by Congress or the states"
and therefore
<Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
So how is the display of a religious symbol a law? And more specifically how
is it a law respecting anything?
Uh, "is it a law respecting anything" needs familiarity
with both the Constitution and how it works.
You might want to do some reading and studying. That's
/way/ too involved to explain on a ng (although someone
might want to try).
++ gray
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 10:41:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:40:43 -0500, Clear to partly cloudy
wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive thing
for
me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of
the
state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
The "Owners' Manual" has been modified because of hazards
to one's country's health.
The 1st - with the addition of the 14th - and the
interpretations thereof, ban governments from pushing
religion.
However if you want to go with the original document and
the intent thereof, religion must not be pushed and much of
religion is vile, disgusting and superficial.
---------------------------------------
from a letter to Dr Rush:
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I
have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have
reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for
it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the
subject which ought to displease neither the rational
Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a
character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know
that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who
are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too
interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which
the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people;
the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that
delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it
secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope
of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of
Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes
its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his
own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists.
The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion
to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power
confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their
schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon
the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to
fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the
cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging
conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c.,
which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of
truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei
& Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.
---------------------------------------
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Vicksburg, MS US
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clear to partly cloudy" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 10:54:57 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEE97CC4002F0F620EBC5C20@news.giganews.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:40:43 -0500, Clear to partly cloudy
wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive
thing
for
me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn of
the
state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and think
that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
The "Owners' Manual" has been modified because of hazards
to one's country's health.
The 1st - with the addition of the 14th - and the
interpretations thereof, ban governments from pushing
religion.
Could you point out the exact part of where it says that? I mean, there is
that part about the free expression of too. So where I am confused is how do
you reconcile the proposition that congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion with the part that implies they can make no law
precluding the free expression of religion? It just seems to me like what
they want from us is this. If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property, it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what it
represents. No different than if there were a nude statute in the justice
department I would think.
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 02:52:19 PM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lBUwe.26292$%G1.25882@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEE97CC4002F0F620EBC5C20@news.giganews.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:40:43 -0500, Clear to partly cloudy
wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive
thing
for
me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the lawn
of
the
state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and
think
that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
The "Owners' Manual" has been modified because of hazards
to one's country's health.
The 1st - with the addition of the 14th - and the
interpretations thereof, ban governments from pushing
religion.
Could you point out the exact part of where it says that? I mean, there is
that part about the free expression of too. So where I am confused is how
do
you reconcile the proposition that congress shall make no law respecting
the
establishment of religion with the part that implies they can make no law
precluding the free expression of religion? It just seems to me like what
they want from us is this. If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property, it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what
it
represents. No different than if there were a nude statute in the justice
department I would think.
That would be a nude statue, not a nude statute. ;-) My guess is that most
statues are anti-nude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clear to partly cloudy" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 02:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:ZYednfY4Us1i0VnfRVn-iA@ez2.net...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lBUwe.26292$%G1.25882@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEE97CC4002F0F620EBC5C20@news.giganews.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:40:43 -0500, Clear to partly cloudy
wrote
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6rs7c1dm32uhr2qq97vm448jmpl10ogns9@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
The 10 Commandments -- to me -- are not a particularly offensive
thing
for
me to see hanging on the walls of the court house, or on the
lawn
of
the
state capitol.
So? And this is important to say for what reason?
\ I do not see any establishment of religion, and certainly not
a particular religion, in the 10 commandments.
Is there anything in the constitution that prohibits the display of
religious symbols on public property? I'm kinda old fashioned and
think
that
sticking with the owners manual is much better than freelancing.
The "Owners' Manual" has been modified because of hazards
to one's country's health.
The 1st - with the addition of the 14th - and the
interpretations thereof, ban governments from pushing
religion.
Could you point out the exact part of where it says that? I mean, there
is
that part about the free expression of too. So where I am confused is
how
do
you reconcile the proposition that congress shall make no law respecting
the
establishment of religion with the part that implies they can make no
law
precluding the free expression of religion? It just seems to me like
what
they want from us is this. If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property, it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what
it
represents. No different than if there were a nude statute in the
justice
department I would think.
That would be a nude statue, not a nude statute. ;-) My guess is that most
statues are anti-nude.
No, that would be a naked statue. <G>
--
Come to sunny Laredo, Texas
Where the bullets are flying and
the people are always clear
to partly cloudy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 04:45:40 PM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property,
Public property is not MY property - it belongs to the public. No one
can do anything with public property except as authorized by law. No
law can authorize me to put up a religious symbol, because that would
be a law respecting an establishment of religion.
it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what it
represents.
There is nothing in the constitution defining such a "duty".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clear to partly cloudy" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
30 Jun 2005 04:53:06 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:frp8c1th8ol0cur6ctrkcmaan45mnngd0b@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property,
Public property is not MY property - it belongs to the public. No one
can do anything with public property except as authorized by law. No
law can authorize me to put up a religious symbol, because that would
be a law respecting an establishment of religion.
it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what it
represents.
There is nothing in the constitution defining such a "duty".
Okay, so what am I compelled by the constitution to do in such a situation?
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome a strict interpretation |
01 Jul 2005 08:49:59 AM |
|
|
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:frp8c1th8ol0cur6ctrkcmaan45mnngd0b@4ax.com...
"Clear to partly cloudy" <ctpc2456@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you want to put up a religious symbol on
public property,
Public property is not MY property - it belongs to the public. No one
can do anything with public property except as authorized by law. No
law can authorize me to put up a religious symbol, because that would
be a law respecting an establishment of religion.
it is my duty to ignore it if I don't subscribe to what it
represents.
There is nothing in the constitution defining such a "duty".
Okay, so what am I compelled by the constitution to do in such a situation?
Individuals aren't compelled by the constitution to do much of
anything, unless they are elected to constitutional office.
On the other hand, if they go to work for the government, then their
actions on the job, are not those of "individuals", but of the state,
and must be authorized by constitutional law.
This should be patently obvious, since otherwise every constitutional
protection would disappear as government employees "as individuals"
did the sorts of things that the government is forbidden to do. The
cop breaks into your house while you are out "as an individual" and
not as a cop, searches it and finds evidence of wrongdoing, and turns
it over to the DA "as an individual" and not as a cop.
I like stronger protections for my liberties than that.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone who would read the Constitution |
01 Jul 2005 10:46:32 PM |
|
|
Forget this phony precedent crap, I want someone who reads the damn
Constitution and not what some other previous justice opinionated. I
want a justice who can back up his/her opinion by either the text,
intent or both, you know, like Thomas does and liberals do not. If they
cannot do that then they are not justices who serve justice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
02 Jul 2005 09:14:39 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jul 2005 20:46:32 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
Forget this phony precedent crap, I want someone who reads the damn
Constitution and not what some other previous justice opinionated. I
want a justice who can back up his/her opinion by either the text,
intent or both, you know, like Thomas does and liberals do not. If they
cannot do that then they are not justices who serve justice.
*****
The belief that "original intent" of the constitution which applies to
things that didn't occur for a century after the adoption of the
constitution is absolute nonsense.
The "Founders" didn't know, or could have ever dreamed of the problems
that the industrial revolution brought on, or the massive influx of
tens of millions of immigrants.
Decades of non-involvement of "government" in business and wealth
proved near fatal for this nation culminating in the great depression.
Government and the Courts were so one-sidedly on business interests
that the people suffered. That is directly along the lines of
"original intent" you're so fucking proud of.
Thomas, the porno watcher, would have sided with business against
those who wanted to regulate business and the use of child labor---and
(between "long Dong Silver tapes") would have concluded that federal
law wouldn't be constitutional to stop it.
You haven't a fucking brain if you can't figure out that the mantra of
being promoted by conservatives is merely a re-hash of past FAILED
ideological judical "inactivism"---positions that allow business to
***** everyone.
==================================================================
On 5 Mar 2005 11:52:54 -0800, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com> wrote:
"There is
nothing improper about segregation as long as it is by individule
choice as far as the fourteenth amendment framers were concerned."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
02 Jul 2005 05:21:34 PM |
|
|
<Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com> wrote in message
news:br7dc1tdu67ujrj39q5dipv0kodvqsged4@4ax.com...
On 1 Jul 2005 20:46:32 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
Forget this phony precedent crap, I want someone who reads the damn
Constitution and not what some other previous justice opinionated. I
want a justice who can back up his/her opinion by either the text,
intent or both, you know, like Thomas does and liberals do not. If they
cannot do that then they are not justices who serve justice.
*****
The belief that "original intent" of the constitution which applies to
things that didn't occur for a century after the adoption of the
constitution is absolute nonsense.
That's just your opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's. The
constitution is our owners manual. We should follow it. If we don't we wind
up with a bunch of spare parts that the next guy tries to make fit a new
model and all we get is a Cadillac with a Yugo motor.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 10:11:50 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:21:34 GMT, "Henry \"Ham\" Hammond"
<hamhammond@hotmail.com> wrote:
The belief that "original intent" of the constitution which applies to
things that didn't occur for a century after the adoption of the
constitution is absolute nonsense.
That's just your opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's. The
constitution is our owners manual. We should follow it. If we don't we wind
up with a bunch of spare parts that the next guy tries to make fit a new
model and all we get is a Cadillac with a Yugo motor.
Far's I know the constitution makes it very plain that a judiciary is
the ONLY institution that interprets the constitution and laws in
relation to it.
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
And when you say "follow it", what you imply is that someone outside
the judiciary--like David Macintosh (federalist society founder) an
ultraconservative should have some influence on philosophy of
constitutional law
There has never been any "doctrine of original intent"----that is a
recent modern innovation created to counter the loss of conservative
power that began eroding in the 60's
"Following the constitution" is NOT the stringent, narrow, greedy
failed return of law that we suffered through a century ago.
There is only ONE reason why conservatives want to narrow the power of
the courts, and that is because they realize that the money and power
left unchecked by courts, can return the power back to the sleazy
assholes who ran this nation in the 50's and 60's.
You need to read what this nation was like then, before you start
wishing for that kind of society.
===============================================================================================
"...."Positive polarization" has given the party a hateful and frightening face, ushering in
spates of gay-bashing, intolerance toward legal immigrants and declarations of a "Christian nation,
" essentially telling Jews and those outside of fundamentalist Christianity to get lost. Over the
last two general elections, the state GOP in California has been virtually annihilated.
Even Southern voters are clearly moving on. In the '98 elections, GOP candidates were toppled in
Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas. But party leadership seems reluctant to hear the message..."
Edward Tafel---Log Cabin Republicans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 12:55:14 PM |
|
|
<Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com> wrote in message
news:k10gc11n0fjtlpetlgd3gdbn8ci3b9nr1o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:21:34 GMT, "Henry \"Ham\" Hammond"
<hamhammond@hotmail.com> wrote:
The belief that "original intent" of the constitution which applies to
things that didn't occur for a century after the adoption of the
constitution is absolute nonsense.
That's just your opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's. The
constitution is our owners manual. We should follow it. If we don't we
wind
up with a bunch of spare parts that the next guy tries to make fit a new
model and all we get is a Cadillac with a Yugo motor.
Far's I know the constitution makes it very plain that a judiciary is
the ONLY institution that interprets the constitution and laws in
relation to it.
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
And when you say "follow it", what you imply is that someone outside
the judiciary--like David Macintosh (federalist society founder) an
ultraconservative should have some influence on philosophy of
constitutional law
There has never been any "doctrine of original intent"----that is a
recent modern innovation created to counter the loss of conservative
power that began eroding in the 60's
"Following the constitution" is NOT the stringent, narrow, greedy
failed return of law that we suffered through a century ago.
There is only ONE reason why conservatives want to narrow the power of
the courts, and that is because they realize that the money and power
left unchecked by courts, can return the power back to the sleazy
assholes who ran this nation in the 50's and 60's.
You need to read what this nation was like then, before you start
wishing for that kind of society.
I don't need to read *****. I lived it. But, just so's you'll know, I did 28
years hard time in a state prison. I've probably read more than you've
breathed. I've seen this judicial ***** up close and personal, so get all
uppity with me about what it means.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 12:52:56 PM |
|
|
<Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com> wrote in message
news:k10gc11n0fjtlpetlgd3gdbn8ci3b9nr1o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:21:34 GMT, "Henry \"Ham\" Hammond"
<hamhammond@hotmail.com> wrote:
The belief that "original intent" of the constitution which applies to
things that didn't occur for a century after the adoption of the
constitution is absolute nonsense.
That's just your opinion which is no more valid than anyone else's. The
constitution is our owners manual. We should follow it. If we don't we
wind
up with a bunch of spare parts that the next guy tries to make fit a new
model and all we get is a Cadillac with a Yugo motor.
Far's I know the constitution makes it very plain that a judiciary is
the ONLY institution that interprets the constitution and laws in
relation to it.
Fine. They should apply the law, not their opinon, the opinion of you or of
me or the polls or anyone else. The constitution spells out how things are
to be handled. I don't think it's rocket science. If the constitution says
situation "A" should be handled at the state level then by God it should be
handled at the state level.
--
Why work when there's the government?
Henry "Ham" Hammond
1136 Radio Lane
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 11:17:41 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights
"The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."
This is a statement of the rule of construction that an affirmation in
particular cases implies a negation in all others. The Amendment
indicates that the National Government is one of delegated and
enumerated powers and that the powers named (with the necessarily
implied powers) are all that the United States possesses or may presume
to exercise. A step beyond the enumeration is unconstitutional and
void, and possible cause for impeachment for treason. In other words,
this forbids the Supreme Court from making up new laws or rights that
is not expressly granted by the constitution. Right to Abortion
violates this because such a right is not expressly defined or
delegated.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively
or to the People."
ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated
by the constitution would be trespassing upon the "rights of the States
or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null
and void." In other words, if there is No Right to Abortion expressly
delegated in the constitution it is a reserved right to the states. And
the 9th gives the supreme court no wiggle room to circimvent this
powerful amendment because it forbids them from making up ***** that is
not found in the constitution. It also makes Roe v. Wade null and void,
but since there is no check and balances against dumbass justices we
have to wait till they drop dead before they can be outed and the
damage repaired.
See why we need to fire a few liberal anti-constitution justices now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 12:34:59 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jul 2005 09:17:41 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Those "rules" are interpreted by only ONE institution---the Judiciary,
you fucking nitwit
You keep insisting that they, not you, are interpreting it wrong
YOU don't get to do that, Banditloon.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 09:02:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 09:17:41 -0700, "The Bandit" <no-reply@idexer.com>
wrote:
wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Those "rules" are interpreted by only ONE institution---the Judiciary,
you fucking nitwit
Uh, those rules require no "interpretation" no more than a sign that
says "Maximum Speed 65" does. In fact, the law was "interpreted" by the
veryone who wrote it, which trumps anything a supreme court justice
could ver dream up.
If those two amendments need "interpretating" by a justice then
something is very wrong.
You keep insisting that they, not you, are interpreting it wrong
YOU don't get to do that, Banditloon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of theConstitution |
03 Jul 2005 10:08:15 PM |
|
|
The Bandit wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights
"The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."
This is a statement of the rule of construction that an affirmation in
particular cases implies a negation in all others. The Amendment
indicates that the National Government is one of delegated and
enumerated powers and that the powers named (with the necessarily
implied powers) are all that the United States possesses or may presume
to exercise. A step beyond the enumeration is unconstitutional and
void, and possible cause for impeachment for treason. In other words,
this forbids the Supreme Court from making up new laws or rights that
is not expressly granted by the constitution. Right to Abortion
violates this because such a right is not expressly defined or
delegated.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively
or to the People."
ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated
by the constitution would be trespassing upon the "rights of the States
or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null
and void." In other words, if there is No Right to Abortion expressly
delegated in the constitution it is a reserved right to the states. And
the 9th gives the supreme court no wiggle room to circimvent this
powerful amendment because it forbids them from making up ***** that is
not found in the constitution. It also makes Roe v. Wade null and void,
but since there is no check and balances against dumbass justices we
have to wait till they drop dead before they can be outed and the
damage repaired.
See why we need to fire a few liberal anti-constitution justices now?
My guess is that you don't know anything about Roe V Wade. It stated
that the Texas law violated the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Go ahead. Read it for yourself. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
Careful. There's a lot of big words in it. ;-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
03 Jul 2005 11:25:52 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:zK1ye.1219$3Y3.519@trnddc09...
The Bandit wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights
"The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."
This is a statement of the rule of construction that an affirmation in
particular cases implies a negation in all others. The Amendment
indicates that the National Government is one of delegated and
enumerated powers and that the powers named (with the necessarily
implied powers) are all that the United States possesses or may presume
to exercise. A step beyond the enumeration is unconstitutional and
void, and possible cause for impeachment for treason. In other words,
this forbids the Supreme Court from making up new laws or rights that
is not expressly granted by the constitution. Right to Abortion
violates this because such a right is not expressly defined or
delegated.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively
or to the People."
ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated
by the constitution would be trespassing upon the "rights of the States
or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null
and void." In other words, if there is No Right to Abortion expressly
delegated in the constitution it is a reserved right to the states. And
the 9th gives the supreme court no wiggle room to circimvent this
powerful amendment because it forbids them from making up ***** that is
not found in the constitution. It also makes Roe v. Wade null and void,
but since there is no check and balances against dumbass justices we
have to wait till they drop dead before they can be outed and the
damage repaired.
See why we need to fire a few liberal anti-constitution justices now?
My guess is that you don't know anything about Roe V Wade.
Roe v. Wade is an unconstitutional decision where 9 unelected justices
legislated from the bench.
Now with Oconnor retiring, and Reinquist fixing to step down because of the
cancer, you can say Sayonara to the Roe decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry \Ham\ Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: I would welcome anyone to wipe ***** with BANDITS" version of the Constitution |
04 Jul 2005 07:26:05 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11chee96gqaorf4@corp.supernews.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:zK1ye.1219$3Y3.519@trnddc09...
The Bandit wrote:
Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote:
There is NO provision in constitutional law that says what others
wrote at the time or around the time of the crafting of the
constitution have any relevance except to a historian--even those who
wrote the constitution are historical writings.
Well, the constitution does provide rules for construction that must
be
followed, but seldom is by liberals:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights
"The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."
This is a statement of the rule of construction that an affirmation in
particular cases implies a negation in all others. The Amendment
indicates that the National Government is one of delegated and
enumerated powers and that the powers named (with the necessarily
implied powers) are all that the United States possesses or may
presume
to exercise. A step beyond the enumeration is unconstitutional and
void, and possible cause for impeachment for treason. In other words,
this forbids the Supreme Court from making up new laws or rights that
is not expressly granted by the constitution. Right to Abortion
violates this because such a right is not expressly defined or
delegated.
Article 10 of the Bill of Rights
"The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively
or to the People."
ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated
by the constitution would be trespassing upon the "rights of the
States
or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null
and void." In other words, if there is No Right to Abortion expressly
delegated in the constitution it is a reserved right to the states.
And
the 9th gives the supreme court no wiggle room to circimvent this
powerful amendment because it forbids them from making up ***** that is
not found in the constitution. It also makes Roe v. Wade null and
void,
but sinc | | | | | | | | |
