| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Dec 2005 10:44:15 AM |
| Object: |
SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide |
Bill would end church-state divide
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/120805/opi_view001.shtml
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibit the free expression thereof; … ." These profound words from the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect the freedom of all
Americans and serve as a bulwark against the specter of state-sponsored
religious tyranny.
In their enlightened wisdom, the Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional
republic which requires the government to remain neutral in matters of
religion. It was no accident that there is no mention at all of any
religious deity anywhere in the Constitution. In that regard, the American
Constitution remains unique in the world.
Our government would be completely secular, made up of laws set down by
men, not the supernatural. Religion would remain private, personal and
accessible. We would have freedom of religion, and just as important, we
would have freedom from religion.
In his letter to the editor (Nov. 29), retired Judge Darrell White
advocates support of House Resolution 1070, the so-called Constitution
Restoration Act.
This bill, if signed into law, would essentially demolish the wall of
separation between church and state that has stood since our nation's
founding and pave the way for the establishment of an American theocracy.
No longer would those with an opposing view of state-sponsored religion
have a voice in the courts, and it would dictate to all Americans that
fundamentalist Christianity is the law of the land.
Judge White makes the claim that religion in this country is under attack
and needs to be protected. It is not religion that is under attack, it is
the Constitution itself.
Rob Mertzweiller
Baton Rouge
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
10 Dec 2005 02:47:15 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
Bill would end church-state divide
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/120805/opi_view001.shtml
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibit the free expression thereof; ... ." These profound words from the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect the freedom of all
Americans and serve as a bulwark against the specter of state-sponsored
religious tyranny.
In their enlightened wisdom, the Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional
republic which requires the government to remain neutral in matters of
religion. It was no accident that there is no mention at all of any
religious deity anywhere in the Constitution. In that regard, the American
Constitution remains unique in the world.
Our government would be completely secular, made up of laws set down by
men, not the supernatural. Religion would remain private, personal and
accessible. We would have freedom of religion, and just as important, we
would have freedom from religion.
In his letter to the editor (Nov. 29), retired Judge Darrell White
advocates support of House Resolution 1070, the so-called Constitution
Restoration Act.
This bill, if signed into law, would essentially demolish the wall of
separation between church and state that has stood since our nation's
founding and pave the way for the establishment of an American theocracy.
No longer would those with an opposing view of state-sponsored religion
have a voice in the courts, and it would dictate to all Americans that
fundamentalist Christianity is the law of the land.
Judge White makes the claim that religion in this country is under attack
and needs to be protected. It is not religion that is under attack, it is
the Constitution itself.
Rob Mertzweiller
Baton Rouge
The above article fails the 10th Amendment test:
"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."
When the 1st and 10th Amendments are considered together, it is
reasonable to conclude that the 10th reserved the power to legislate
religion to the States since the 1st explicitly prohibited this power
only to Congress (federal government; aka United States). Church-state
separation discussions which fail to mention the 10th are based on the
Court's scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause in the
Everson opinion:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
10 Dec 2005 07:40:22 PM |
|
|
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
10 Dec 2005 08:13:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
11 Dec 2005 11:33:52 AM |
|
|
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
Freddie, Constitu tional law, or even law in general
isn't a matter of "just applying common sense".
There are entire court cases involving legislation and
law revolving around the definition of "shall", "is",
"must" and "can"
Why in ***** do you think that some dumb *****, having
some idiotic set of beliefs can merely "apply 4th grade
reading skills" and interpret the meaning of the
constitution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 08:36:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
Freddie, Constitu tional law, or even law in general
isn't a matter of "just applying common sense".
That depends. You can hardly avoid sleight-of-hand wording in case
opinion if you are an activist Justice who is rigging case precedents
to unlawfully legislate unconstitutional ideas from the bench.
On the other hand, if you are a Justice who is sincere about defending
the Constitution in compliance with the oath that you made to defend it
when you accepted the job then Jefferson's "secret formula" for
interpreting the Constitution is applicable:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
There are entire court cases involving legislation and
law revolving around the definition of "shall", "is",
"must" and "can"
If I understand you correctly, I won't deny that some case issues are
difficult to decide.
Why in ***** do you think that some dumb *****, having
some idiotic set of beliefs can merely "apply 4th grade
reading skills" and interpret the meaning of the
constitution?
Again, your problem is that you simply don't want to hear what the
Constitution says.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "croaker" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 11:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:36:40 -0800, fred wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up
a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force
nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1,
16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to
teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of
any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words
of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law
was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the
States.
Freddie, Constitu tional law, or even law in general isn't a matter of
"just applying common sense".
That depends. You can hardly avoid sleight-of-hand wording in case
opinion if you are an activist Justice who is rigging case precedents to
unlawfully legislate unconstitutional ideas from the bench.
On the other hand, if you are a Justice who is sincere about defending the
Constitution in compliance with the oath that you made to defend it when
you accepted the job then Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting
the Constitution is applicable:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to
be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean
everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson,
1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New
Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
here is some interesting reading:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm
There are entire court cases involving legislation and law revolving
around the definition of "shall", "is", "must" and "can"
If I understand you correctly, I won't deny that some case issues are
difficult to decide.
Why in ***** do you think that some dumb *****, having some idiotic set
of beliefs can merely "apply 4th grade reading skills" and interpret the
meaning of the constitution?
Again, your problem is that you simply don't want to hear what the
Constitution says.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "croaker" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 11:00:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:36:40 -0800, fred wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up
a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force
nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church
against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1,
16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church
attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small,
can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to
teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal
Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of
any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words
of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law
was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and
State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the
States.
Freddie, Constitu tional law, or even law in general isn't a matter of
"just applying common sense".
That depends. You can hardly avoid sleight-of-hand wording in case
opinion if you are an activist Justice who is rigging case precedents to
unlawfully legislate unconstitutional ideas from the bench.
On the other hand, if you are a Justice who is sincere about defending the
Constitution in compliance with the oath that you made to defend it when
you accepted the job then Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting
the Constitution is applicable:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to
be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean
everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson,
1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New
Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
here is some interesting reading:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm
There are entire court cases involving legislation and law revolving
around the definition of "shall", "is", "must" and "can"
If I understand you correctly, I won't deny that some case issues are
difficult to decide.
Why in ***** do you think that some dumb *****, having some idiotic set
of beliefs can merely "apply 4th grade reading skills" and interpret the
meaning of the constitution?
Again, your problem is that you simply don't want to hear what the
Constitution says.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
11 Dec 2005 01:18:40 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C5FE55.6053D830
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com> wrote in message =
news:bjoop19596asj1sknpgti4g30tksjsq031@4ax.com...
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment =
means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up =
a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force =
nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against =
his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any =
religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance =
or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be =
levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they =
may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice =
religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or =
secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or =
groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against =
establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation =
between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at =
page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the =
Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the =
States.
=20
Freddie, Constitu tional law, or even law in general
isn't a matter of "just applying common sense".
=20
There are entire court cases involving legislation and
law revolving around the definition of "shall", "is",
"must" and "can"=20
=20
Why in ***** do you think that some dumb *****, having
some idiotic set of beliefs can merely "apply 4th grade
reading skills"=20
Probably has something to do with exhibiting 4th grade language skills, =
which have no place on my computer.
P L O N K !!!
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C5FE55.6053D830
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> wrote=20
in message </FONT><A=20
href=3D"news:bjoop19596asj1sknpgti4g30tksjsq031@4ax.com"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:bjoop19596asj1sknpgti4g30tksjsq031@4ax.com</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, =
"fred"<BR>>=20
<</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:clarma1@gmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>clarma1@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote:<BR>>=20
<BR>> ><BR>> >Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:<BR>> =
>> On=20
10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"<BR>> >> <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:clarma1@gmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>clarma1@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote:<BR>>=20
>><BR>> >> >"The 'establishment of religion' clause of =
the=20
First Amendment means at<BR>> >> >least this: Neither a =
state nor=20
the Federal Government can set up a<BR>> >> >church. Neither =
can=20
pass laws which aid one religion, aid all<BR>> >> =
>religions, or=20
prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor<BR>> >> =
>influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against=20
his<BR>> >> >will or force him to profess a belief or =
disbelief in=20
any religion. No<BR>> >> >person can be punished for =
entertain- [330=20
U.S. 1, 16] ing or<BR>> >> >professing religious =
beliefs=20
or disbeliefs, for church attendance or<BR>> >> =
>non-attendance. No=20
tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to<BR>> >> =
>support=20
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be<BR>> =
>>=20
>called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice=20
religion.<BR>> >> >Neither a state nor the Federal =
Government can,=20
openly or secretly,<BR>> >> >participate in the affairs of =
any=20
religious organizations or groups and<BR>> >> >vice versa. =
In the=20
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment<BR>> >> =
>of=20
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation =
between<BR>>=20
>> >Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 =
U.S. at=20
page<BR>> >> >164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of =
Ewing TP.=20
1947.<BR>> >><BR>> >> IOW, states CANNOT legislate=20
religion<BR>> ><BR>> >It's only the corrupt USSC says that =
the=20
States cannot legislate<BR>> >religion. Again, applying just =
a=20
little bit of basic reading skills<BR>> >and common sense to the =
1st and=20
10th Amendments shows that the Founding<BR>> >Fathers reserved the =
power=20
to legislate religion uniquely to the States.<BR>> <BR>> Freddie, =
Constitu=20
tional law, or even law in general<BR>> isn't a matter of "just =
applying=20
common sense".<BR>> <BR>> There are entire court cases involving=20
legislation and<BR>> law revolving around the definition of "shall",=20
"is",<BR>> "must" and "can" <BR>> <BR>> Why in ***** do you =
think that=20
some dumb *****, having<BR>> some idiotic set of beliefs can merely =
"apply=20
4th grade<BR>> reading skills" </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Probably has something to do with =
exhibiting 4th=20
grade language skills, which have no place on my computer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 =
size=3D7>P L O N K=20
!!!</FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C5FE55.6053D830--
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
11 Dec 2005 04:42:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:18:40 GMT, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
P L O N K !!!
You keep saying that
But you don't go away.
Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 10:11:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:42:24 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:18:40 GMT, "J.C."
<jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote:
P L O N K !!!
You keep saying that
But you don't go away.
Why is that?
Apparently he does not understand the expression.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
11 Dec 2005 04:57:33 AM |
|
|
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
So the states have the right to outlaw religion if they so choose or
to punish those who do not belong to the church established by the
state? Do you support the arrangement arrived at in Germany after its
religious wars, i.e. if one does not belong to the prince's (or the
state's) religion one has to move?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10thAmendment test |
11 Dec 2005 07:29:15 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
So the states have the right to outlaw religion if they so choose or
to punish those who do not belong to the church established by the
state?
Don't be foolish. The argument you present barely makes it to specious.
Outlawing a religion would be an obvious violation of the free exercise
clause, which the 14th amendment DOES force to be applied to the states.
This is not disputed by most folk who believe the applicability of the
establishment clause to the states is not appropriate and resulted from
a strained reading of the 1st and 14th amendments.
Do you support the arrangement arrived at in Germany after its
religious wars, i.e. if one does not belong to the prince's (or the
state's) religion one has to move?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
And if you play Madonnas latest CD backwards its say the Everson court
screwed up.
mickey
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 10:11:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:29:15 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
So the states have the right to outlaw religion if they so choose or
to punish those who do not belong to the church established by the
state?
Don't be foolish. The argument you present barely makes it to specious.
Outlawing a religion would be an obvious violation of the free exercise
clause, which the 14th amendment DOES force to be applied to the states.
This is not disputed by most folk who believe the applicability of the
establishment clause to the states is not appropriate and resulted from
a strained reading of the 1st and 14th amendments.
I realize that fred would not say the states had such a right. I was
pointing out that his position is incoherent. Either the states have
the right to legislate religion or they do not.
Do you support the arrangement arrived at in Germany after its
religious wars, i.e. if one does not belong to the prince's (or the
state's) religion one has to move?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
And if you play Madonnas latest CD backwards its say the Everson court
screwed up.
Interesting, but it has nothing to do with the quote; and the quote is
not meant to be in response to fred.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10thAmendment test |
12 Dec 2005 11:02:31 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:29:15 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 18:13:59 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Knickkkers@WhattaIdiot.com wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:47:15 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." -- Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
IOW, states CANNOT legislate religion
It's only the corrupt USSC says that the States cannot legislate
religion. Again, applying just a little bit of basic reading skills
and common sense to the 1st and 10th Amendments shows that the Founding
Fathers reserved the power to legislate religion uniquely to the States.
So the states have the right to outlaw religion if they so choose or
to punish those who do not belong to the church established by the
state?
Don't be foolish. The argument you present barely makes it to specious.
Outlawing a religion would be an obvious violation of the free exercise
clause, which the 14th amendment DOES force to be applied to the states.
This is not disputed by most folk who believe the applicability of the
establishment clause to the states is not appropriate and resulted from
a strained reading of the 1st and 14th amendments.
I realize that fred would not say the states had such a right. I was
pointing out that his position is incoherent. Either the states have
the right to legislate religion or they do not.
I'll give you another chance. The constitution and the amendments,
putting aside for the moment any creative SCOTUS pronouncements,
constrains ONLY the Federal Congress from passing "laws respecting an
establishment of religion." (It does not similarly constrain State
legislatures.) The amended constitution DOES constrains both the federal
and state governments from interfering with the free exercise of
religion. The is accomplished by the appropriate application of the 14th
amendent to the "free exercise clause" of the 1st. Similar direct
application of the 14th to the "establishment clause" is not possible as
that clause does not outline or define a privilege or an immunity.
According to Fred (and others), this was clear until the Everson court,
which, without litigation and without public discourse, combined the two
religion clauses, contravening both the rules of grammar and the
legislative history of the 1st amendment, rather like wallpapering over
both the walls and the windows.
Do you support the arrangement arrived at in Germany after its
religious wars, i.e. if one does not belong to the prince's (or the
state's) religion one has to move?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
And if you play Madonnas latest CD backwards its say the Everson court
screwed up.
Interesting, but it has nothing to do with the quote; and the quote is
not meant to be in response to fred.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 11:22:30 AM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
The amended constitution DOES constrains both the federal
and state governments from interfering with the free exercise of
religion. The is accomplished by the appropriate application of the 14th
amendent to the "free exercise clause" of the 1st. Similar direct
application of the 14th to the "establishment clause" is not possible as
that clause does not outline or define a privilege or an immunity.
That doesn't follow. Why isn't the right to be free of
government-sponsored religion (which the Establishment Clause secures)
a privilege or immunity?
Moreover, how could a state's creating an official religion or
otherwise sponsoring or aiding a particular faith possibly hold up
under the Equal Protection Clause? Would you seriously suggest that
while it's improper for a state to discriminate among its citizens
based on race, gender, or national origin, it's OK to do so based on
religious views?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 02:25:19 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134408150.734524.163860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would you seriously suggest that
while it's improper for a state to discriminate among its citizens
based on race, gender, or national origin, it's OK to do so based on
religious views?
A state can be discriminating as to who it discriminates against, or for.
For instance, If you don't live in my state, you can't move here tomorrow
and run for governor the next day. If you are a male, you can't use a
females public rest room. If you are black, you can not be a member of a
whites only private club or vice versa. If you are a homosexual male, you
can't marry another homosexual male. Same goes for homosexual females.
It all depends upon what the state Constitution provides and the length of
time it has been in force. In the recent case of religion in Texas, that
principle was made very clear. So, in answer to your question, it is NOT
improper for a state to discriminate on certain things, state citizen or
not.
The fact still remains, the original intent of the Constituion of the United
States of America allowed individual states to compel a "State Religion" if
they so chose. Some people seem unable to grasp that the "state" is the
"people" of that jurisdiction. If the "people" want to do something that is
within the powers retained by them as a party to the Constitution of the
United States of America, they may do so. All the 14th Amendment does is
require that any laws they inculcate into their body of law stand up to
either a "rational basis" or a "strict" scrutiny, if challenged, as they
wind their way through the due process of law. THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
OFFER A BLANKET FOR ANY CHALLENGER TO HIDE UNDER!
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 03:11:58 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
If the "people" want to do something that is within the powers retained by them as a
party to the Constitution of the United States of America, they may do so. All the 14th
Amendment does is require that any laws they inculcate into their body of law stand up
to either a "rational basis" or a "strict" scrutiny, if challenged, as they wind their way
through the due process of law.
Indeed. And could a state or local governing body ever in a million
years come up with a rational basis (much less a reason satisfying
strict scrutiny) for establishing an official state religion? Or for
granting tax exemptions only to denominations A, B, and C? Or for
mandating that only self-avowed theists could hold public office? Or
for using taxpayer money to teach the tenets of religion X in the
public schools?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 03:28:32 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134421918.360151.23250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
If the "people" want to do something that is within the powers retained
by them as a
party to the Constitution of the United States of America, they may do
so. All the 14th
Amendment does is require that any laws they inculcate into their body of
law stand up
to either a "rational basis" or a "strict" scrutiny, if challenged, as
they wind their way
through the due process of law.
Indeed. And could a state or local governing body ever in a million
years come up with a rational basis (much less a reason satisfying
strict scrutiny) for establishing an official state religion?
I don't think so in this day and time but they certainly did in the 17 and
18 hundreds.
Or for
granting tax exemptions only to denominations A, B, and C?
I could see that in some states. Utah for instance.
Or for
mandating that only self-avowed theists could hold public office?
Perhaps.
Or
for using taxpayer money to teach the tenets of religion X in the
public schools?
Did for quite a long time, didn't they?
The fact still remains, there is no separation of church and state anywhere
in the Constitution of the United States of America, nor in any of the
subsequent amendments. There is only a very simple admonition to congress
that they are not to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion
or the free expression thereof. Which tells me that the legislature is to be
neutral in all matters of religion and as they are co-equal branches of
government, so to should the judiciary branch and the executive branch be.
That judges have allowed themselves to be swayed by political winds is an
exhibition of weakness on their part, not on the part of the Constitution of
the United States of America.
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 04:03:34 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134421918.360151.23250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. And could a state or local governing body ever in a million
years come up with a rational basis (much less a reason satisfying
strict scrutiny) for establishing an official state religion?
I don't think so in this day and time but they certainly did in the 17 and
18 hundreds.
They did a lot of things back then that wouldn't pass muster today.
Or for granting tax exemptions only to denominations A, B, and C?
I could see that in some states. Utah for instance.
The issue isn't whether Utah would do such a thing, but whether it
could come up with a rational basis for denying the exemptions to
non-Mormon faiths.
Or for mandating that only self-avowed theists could hold public office?
Perhaps.
That I'd like to hear.
Or for using taxpayer money to teach the tenets of religion X in the
public schools?
Did for quite a long time, didn't they?
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
The fact still remains, there is no separation of church and state anywhere
in the Constitution of the United States of America, nor in any of the
subsequent amendments. There is only a very simple admonition to congress
that they are not to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion
or the free expression thereof. Which tells me that the legislature is to be
neutral in all matters of religion and as they are co-equal branches of
government, so to should the judiciary branch and the executive branch be.
That judges have allowed themselves to be swayed by political winds is an
exhibition of weakness on their part, not on the part of the Constitution of
the United States of America.
All this means is that you disagree with the Court. But the undeniable
fact is, separation IS the law, especially the the rule that the
Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments. You may
think the Court erred in its decisions, but that doesn't detract one
bit from what the current state of the law is, any more than the
criticism following the Court's 1954 Brown decision (to the effect that
the court had violated the Constitution and obliterated States' Rights)
affected the rule that legally segregated schools were
unconstitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 04:11:12 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134421918.360151.23250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. And could a state or local governing body ever in a million
years come up with a rational basis (much less a reason satisfying
strict scrutiny) for establishing an official state religion?
I don't think so in this day and time but they certainly did in the 17
and
18 hundreds.
They did a lot of things back then that wouldn't pass muster today.
Or for granting tax exemptions only to denominations A, B, and C?
I could see that in some states. Utah for instance.
The issue isn't whether Utah would do such a thing, but whether it
could come up with a rational basis for denying the exemptions to
non-Mormon faiths.
Or for mandating that only self-avowed theists could hold public
office?
Perhaps.
That I'd like to hear.
Or for using taxpayer money to teach the tenets of religion X in the
public schools?
Did for quite a long time, didn't they?
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
The fact still remains, there is no separation of church and state
anywhere
in the Constitution of the United States of America, nor in any of the
subsequent amendments. There is only a very simple admonition to congress
that they are not to make any laws respecting the establishment of
religion
or the free expression thereof. Which tells me that the legislature is to
be
neutral in all matters of religion and as they are co-equal branches of
government, so to should the judiciary branch and the executive branch
be.
That judges have allowed themselves to be swayed by political winds is an
exhibition of weakness on their part, not on the part of the Constitution
of
the United States of America.
All this means is that you disagree with the Court. But the undeniable
fact is, separation IS the law, especially the the rule that the
Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments. You may
think the Court erred in its decisions, but that doesn't detract one
bit from what the current state of the law is, any more than the
criticism following the Court's 1954 Brown decision (to the effect that
the court had violated the Constitution and obliterated States' Rights)
affected the rule that legally segregated schools were
unconstitutional.
So, when the originalist take over the court, and they will, and reverse all
of that, you will be fine with it I assume.
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 04:13:55 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134421918.360151.23250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. And could a state or local governing body ever in a million
years come up with a rational basis (much less a reason satisfying
strict scrutiny) for establishing an official state religion?
I don't think so in this day and time but they certainly did in the 17
and
18 hundreds.
They did a lot of things back then that wouldn't pass muster today.
Or for granting tax exemptions only to denominations A, B, and C?
I could see that in some states. Utah for instance.
The issue isn't whether Utah would do such a thing, but whether it
could come up with a rational basis for denying the exemptions to
non-Mormon faiths.
Or for mandating that only self-avowed theists could hold public
office?
Perhaps.
That I'd like to hear.
Or for using taxpayer money to teach the tenets of religion X in the
public schools?
Did for quite a long time, didn't they?
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
The fact still remains, there is no separation of church and state
anywhere
in the Constitution of the United States of America, nor in any of the
subsequent amendments. There is only a very simple admonition to congress
that they are not to make any laws respecting the establishment of
religion
or the free expression thereof. Which tells me that the legislature is to
be
neutral in all matters of religion and as they are co-equal branches of
government, so to should the judiciary branch and the executive branch
be.
That judges have allowed themselves to be swayed by political winds is an
exhibition of weakness on their part, not on the part of the Constitution
of
the United States of America.
All this means is that you disagree with the Court. But the undeniable
fact is, separation IS the law,
Not supposed to be any law.
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cpt banjo" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 04:54:31 PM |
|
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
12 Dec 2005 06:22:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:54:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Gcnnf.13934$Fs4.931@fe05.news.easynews.com>:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
That is a totally meaningless distinction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
13 Dec 2005 10:10:04 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v05sp1db5ci971t3jtn1qe83qgp1r8r6kk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:54:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Gcnnf.13934$Fs4.931@fe05.news.easynews.com>:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
That is a totally meaningless distinction.
Sure it is, just read some of the decisions. I bet you'll find two different
versions on some of the same matters.
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
13 Dec 2005 01:32:14 PM |
|
|
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> writes:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v05sp1db5ci971t3jtn1qe83qgp1r8r6kk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:54:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Gcnnf.13934$Fs4.931@fe05.news.easynews.com>:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
That is a totally meaningless distinction.
Sure it is, just read some of the decisions. I bet you'll find two different
versions on some of the same matters.
You totally missed his point.
Which means you did not INTERPRET his remarks accurately.
Of course, if you knew that you had done that, you would
have not missed his point.
Your response shows how right he was in the first place.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.C." |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
13 Dec 2005 02:11:48 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11pu8duppd11f9@corp.supernews.com...
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> writes:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v05sp1db5ci971t3jtn1qe83qgp1r8r6kk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:54:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Gcnnf.13934$Fs4.931@fe05.news.easynews.com>:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time
doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against
judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
That is a totally meaningless distinction.
Sure it is, just read some of the decisions. I bet you'll find two
different
versions on some of the same matters.
You totally missed his point.
Which means you did not INTERPRET his remarks accurately.
Of course, if you knew that you had done that, you would
have not missed his point.
Your response shows how right he was in the first place.
I'm not interested in what "I" did, or what "he" did or what anyone "else"
does. I address points, not person.
--
My fervent hope is that the American people will
adopt a government in which there are two four
year term limits for everybody, no contributions of
any kind to anyone that the contributor can NOT
vote for, no retirement plan for politicians and no
taxpayer money to anyone that has not voted in
3 of the past 4 elections and no taxpayer funded
grants to anyone, only loans that must be paid
back at the private sector rate of interest.
Criticism is easy and takes no intelligence at all.
Offerring a valid, different solution takes brains.
J. C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: SCARY: Bill would end church-state divide; article fails 10th Amendment test |
13 Dec 2005 12:37:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:10:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<vnCnf.435444$Kr.289337@fe08.news.easynews.com>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:v05sp1db5ci971t3jtn1qe83qgp1r8r6kk@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:54:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
"J.C." <jcsplace@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Gcnnf.13934$Fs4.931@fe05.news.easynews.com>:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134427777.556470.160770@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J.C. wrote:
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134425013.996273.148650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
They had racially segragated schools for quite a long time, didn't
they? The fact that something was practiced for a long time doesn't
necessarily make it constitutional.
It does until someone amends it, doesn't it?
No. If that were the rule, then segregated schools would still be
legal, since the Constitution was never amended to specifically outlaw
them or to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson. It sounds like you just want
to get rid of judicial review.
I have no problem with judicial review, but I'm adamantly against judicial
legislation. APPLY the Constitution, don't INTERPRET it!
That is a totally meaningless distinction.
Sure it is, just read some of the decisions. I bet you'll find two different
versions on some of the same matters.
Of course there are different versions. That is the nature of the common
law. The distinction that I called meaningless was the one between
'applying' and 'interpreting' the law. The law is always interpreted in
order to be applied. It has been that way in the common law tradition
long before our Constitution, which explicitly incorporates the common
law and its traditions, was adopted.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
