Bob LeChevalier wrote:

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

And speaking of uncomplementary
things, there is nothing more uncomplementary than a side by side
comparison of the 10th Amendment and the corrupt interpretation of the
establishment clause in the Everson opinion:

"Article 10: 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."

<Amendment XIV
<
<Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
< subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
< States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
< enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
< citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
< of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
< to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
< laws.

Again, note that section 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn't address how
the 1st and 10th Amendments divided certain powers between the federal
and state governments. This evidenced by the fact that section 1
doesn't mention the 10th Amendment at all.

<Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
< legislation, the provisions of this article.

And among other provisions implemented in accordance with the last
section of the 14th amendment:

<TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
< CHAPTER 21--CIVIL RIGHTS
< SUBCHAPTER III--PUBLIC FACILITIES
<Sec. 2000b. Civil actions by the Attorney General
<(a) Complaint; certification; institution of civil action; relief
< requested; jurisdiction; impleading additional parties as
< defendants
<
<Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed
<by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or
<threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the
<laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by
<being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned,
<operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision
<thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in
<section 2000c of this title, and the Attorney General believes the
<complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of
<such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain
<appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of
< an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in
<public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for
<or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate
<district court of the United States against such parties and for such
<relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall
<exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this
<section. The Attorney General may implead as defendants such additional
<parties as are or become necessary to the grant of effective relief
<hereunder.

The 10th amendment is irrelevant, since the power granted by Congress
to be exercised by the courts to has been "delegated to the United
States by the Constitution".

You're conclusion about the 10th Amendment not only doesn't reflect on
anything in Title 42, it almost doesn't make sense anyway. I don't
know what you were trying to do with that "to has" following courts.

But so much for the pitfalls of quick and dirty obfuscation. Shame on
you. :^(

Also, I will presume that you had totally ignored the 10th Amendment
all your life until I started bringing it up.

And since you now know
that the 10th Amendment is a major threat to separationist lies about
the establishment clause and the 14th Amendment,

By the
principle of stare decisis, there is no need to "mention" what has
already been decided, especially since it is not at issue. The issue
in the Everson case was NOT whether the 10th amendment applied, but
whether the Establishment Clause, incorporated under the 14th against
the states by earlier decisions, applied. Both the majority and the
minority agreed that this was the issue, but disagreed as to whether
the particular law being questioned violated the definition of the
Establishment Clause promulgated by the majority.

Your first problem with the above baloney is, as I've already
mentioned, that the 14th Amendment doesn't say one word about how the
1st and 10th Amendments divided government power between the federal
and state governments.

Again, this is evidenced by the fact that the
14th Amendment doesn't mention anything about the 10th Amendment. You
evidently want people to think that the 14th Amendment lawfully
repealed the 10th Amendment. But you ignore that unlike the way that
the 21st Amendment formally repealed the 18th Amendment for example, no
amendment mentions the 10th Amendment. So whether you and corrupt
activist judges like it or not, the 10th Amendment is still alive and
kicking.

Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, both the Reynolds and Everson
opinions used Jefferson's coat tails evidently

to make it appear that
the Court was sincerely interested in the intentions of the Founding
Fathers with respect to the scope of the religious aspects of the 1st
Amendment.

However, the Court unwittingly misrepresented Jefferson

The bottom line is that when more people find out about the 10th
Amendment then we'll see some much need changes in the Judicial branch
of the government.

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

Cary Kittrell wrote:

Given that you blissfully ignored the points I made about the 1st,
10th, 14th Amendments

In a way, you're right: given a choice between the unanimous opinion of nine
career jurists who have achieved the highest position possible in
this country

You can't be serious. Tell me you aren't serious about your blind faith
in Justices. Justices aren't immune from dishonesty and you're a fool
if you think otherwise.

But there is no reason to believe that 9 justices are ALL dishonest,
along with all the ones since then and a good number preceding (since
Everson was merely the first case on the Establishment Clause - there
were earlier cases incorporating other parts of the 1st amendment that
are subject to the same logic you would have us believe.

Whereas there is every reason to believe that YOU are dishonest, since
you are a closed-minded ideologue.

In fact, today's concern for the replacements
of Supreme Court justices indicates that everybody, especially minority
factions, expect activist Justices to legislate from the bench, the
Constitution be damned.

It is the so-called "originalists" on the current court who have the
higher percentage of cases of "legislating from the bench".

Jefferson warned us about judges who usurp legislative power:

But of course the Everson case is not about legislating from the
bench, since in fact the subject of the case is one that MUST NOT be
legislated according to the Constitution.

-- that, and the opinion of someone I have seen hold forth

with equal measures of mis-information, volume, and imperviousness when he
is speaking on topics with which I AM quite familiar -- yep, I'll go
with the Court by default.

The only reason that you are siding with the Court's lies about the
Constitution is because you are part of a minority faction that is an
enemy of an honest interpretation of the Constitution;

The court ruling on Everson was unanimous, hardly a "minority
faction".

If you had shown signs of being in any sense informed,

open to ideas, or responsive in our "discussions" if Intelligent Design, then
I might find myself more inclined to consider your opinions on the Constitution.

Hurry, quick! Hide under the Intelligent Design rock.

The bottom line is that just as you failed to professionally address my
reasonable concerns as to why evolutionists have failed to prove why
Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity are wrong,

It is up to Behe to prove that his assertions are viable, not vice
versa.

BTW, one other flaw with "Intelligent Design" has not been mentioned -
who designed the so-called "Intelligent Designer". If life is too
complex to have evolved, then an intelligent designer is also too
complex, and hence must have been designed as well. Either that or
you have to introduce a new assumption into the works. "Intelligent
Design" leads to infinite regression unless you can pose a NATURAL
explanation for the complexity, or unless you can prove a supernatural
one (which is of course impossible because it wouldn't be supernatural
if it could be tested).

lojbab
--
lojbab