| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2004 01:41:28 AM |
| Object: |
WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about a
piece of evolution-related legislation – a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Andrews." |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
07 Apr 2004 03:38:16 AM |
|
|
(Jason Spaceman) wrote in
news:b9401f8a.0404062241.39490158@posting.google.com:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about a
piece of evolution-related legislation – a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=
37914
J. Spaceman
Almost sounds like a Joey Skaggs stunt.
r
--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
07 Apr 2004 10:01:39 AM |
|
|
(Jason Spaceman) wrote in
news:b9401f8a.0404062241.39490158@posting.google.com:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
Anyone sent them a letter wondering when they are going to cover the fact
that pretty much everything the Discovery Institute whiners put out is
riddled with errors?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
07 Apr 2004 10:13:40 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about a
piece of evolution-related legislation – a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
They admit that such a bill was proposed, but was later revised.
That would fall under my definition of "considering".
Whenever these creationist whackjobs try to sound reasonable,
they fall short.
-E
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "celizwh" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
07 Apr 2004 08:29:29 PM |
|
|
EjP wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about a
piece of evolution-related legislation – a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
They admit that such a bill was proposed, but was later revised.
That would fall under my definition of "considering".
Whenever these creationist whackjobs try to sound reasonable,
they fall short.
-E
J. Spaceman
And we are supposed to take their word for the fact that the bill has been
revised since no revised version has been published.
Here is the evidence whose existence is being denied in this particular
instance.
Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.htm
--
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule you, then
they fight you, then you win."--Gandhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "JR" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
07 Apr 2004 11:13:50 PM |
|
|
"celizwh" <celizwh@elemaskintergate.com> wrote in message
news:4074ADFB.6332DDE0@elemaskintergate.com...
EjP wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about a
piece of evolution-related legislation - a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
They admit that such a bill was proposed, but was later revised.
That would fall under my definition of "considering".
Whenever these creationist whackjobs try to sound reasonable,
they fall short.
-E
J. Spaceman
And we are supposed to take their word for the fact that the bill has been
revised since no revised version has been published.
Here is the evidence whose existence is being denied in this particular
instance.
Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent,
principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this
section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.htm
--
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule you,
then
they fight you, then you win."--Gandhi
I just read that bill....
Qu'est ca *****?
Of course, there's this one
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
l
before Congress right now.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court
shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or
otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element
of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal,
State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal
capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God
as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Guess who wrote that one up... Judge Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments nutjob.
Look, we have to live next to "the elepahnt". Would you mind putting a
leash on these guys
-JR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
08 Apr 2004 03:37:19 AM |
|
|
"JR" <foinavon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t04dc.10173$BF2.906040@news20.bellglobal.com...
"celizwh" <celizwh@elemaskintergate.com> wrote in message
news:4074ADFB.6332DDE0@elemaskintergate.com...
EjP wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about
a
piece of evolution-related legislation - a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
They admit that such a bill was proposed, but was later revised.
That would fall under my definition of "considering".
Whenever these creationist whackjobs try to sound reasonable,
they fall short.
-E
J. Spaceman
And we are supposed to take their word for the fact that the bill has
been
revised since no revised version has been published.
Here is the evidence whose existence is being denied in this particular
instance.
Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent,
principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this
section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.htm
--
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule
you,
then
they fight you, then you win."--Gandhi
I just read that bill....
Qu'est ca *****?
Of course, there's this one
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
l
before Congress right now.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court
shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or
otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an
element
of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal,
State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal
capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God
as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Guess who wrote that one up... Judge Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments
nutjob.
Look, we have to live next to "the elepahnt". Would you mind putting a
leash on these guys
-JR
Such a law would violate the long-established Marbury v Madison (IIRC)
principle that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all constitutional
challenges of legislative matters--no exceptions. It also violates the
first amendment.
He would have to get it through as a constitutional amendment--and that is
deliberately made extremely difficult.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
08 Apr 2004 08:36:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:37:19 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
Of course, there's this one
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
l
before Congress right now.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court
shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or
otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an
element
of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal,
State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal
capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God
as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Guess who wrote that one up... Judge Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments
nutjob.
Look, we have to live next to "the elepahnt". Would you mind putting a
leash on these guys
-JR
Such a law would violate the long-established Marbury v Madison (IIRC)
principle that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all constitutional
challenges of legislative matters--no exceptions. It also violates the
first amendment.
There is a little-known fact about Federal courts that this act is trying
to exploit. First of all, the Federal courts *other* than the Supreme
Court are completely the creation of legislation, not the Constitution.
(Article III - "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.") As such, the *jurisdiction* those
courts can exercise is subject to restriction by Congress, which created
them in the first place.
As to the Supreme Court, its jurisdiction is:
. . . all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be
made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--
between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of
different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands
under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
It has "original jurisdiction" (cases that the Supreme Court can hear as a
*trial* court) of the following:
. . . Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party . . .
But as to its appellate duties (by far the more important):
. . . the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as
to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make.
In essence, this law is saying the Supreme Court cannot hear certain
appeals. Secondarily, it attempts to remove jurisdiction in such cases
from the lower courts by saying they can't hear cases the Supreme Court has
been stripped of jurisdiction over under this law.
<http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html>
It is perhaps indicative of Moore's competency as a lawyer that he went
about it in this manner. If I was doing it, I would have tried first to
remove the jurisdiction of the lower courts and only secondarily (if at
all) tried to remove the Supreme Court's. After all, the Supreme Court is
more likely to accept restrictions on the lower courts, as creatures of
Congress, than it is on itself. And if the lower courts had no
jurisdiction, there would be nothing to appeal and the only way the case
could come before the Supreme Court would be if it would (and could)
exercise its original jurisdiction, something it would be loathe to do.
Fortunately, I think this has zero chance of being passed (particularly in
the Senate) given the "can of worms" it would open up. Even if it did,
there would be arguments based on the 1st and 5th Amendments that the law
is unconstitutional. Perhaps counterintuitively, I think something like
this would have a better chance of passing Constitutional muster if it was
broader, attempting to remove a wider area of jurisdiction from the Federal
courts.
He would have to get it through as a constitutional amendment--and that is
deliberately made extremely difficult.
Ultimately, Moore was smart enough to recognize that and attempt to use a
backdoor route.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily: 'Bogus' story aired by CNN |
08 Apr 2004 08:32:07 AM |
|
|
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"JR" <foinavon@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t04dc.10173$BF2.906040@news20.bellglobal.com...
"celizwh" <celizwh@elemaskintergate.com> wrote in message
news:4074ADFB.6332DDE0@elemaskintergate.com...
EjP wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
'Bogus' story aired by CNN: TV journalist does report on evolution
bill, mischaracterizes what legislation would do
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Posted: April 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
CNN is being urged to run a correction after it aired a story about
a
piece of evolution-related legislation - a story that was full of
inaccuracies.
The report, which was aired Sunday during "CNN Sunday Morning," said
the state of Missouri is considering legislation reporter Denise
Belgrave claimed "would fire teachers who refused to teach
alternatives to evolution." The provision she mentioned, however, is
no longer a part of the bill.
"Its whole story about legislation to fire teachers was bogus," said
Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and
Culture at Discovery Institute, in a statement. "Unfortunately, CNN
ran its story without checking the facts first. There is no such
legislation currently under consideration in Missouri, let alone any
other states as CNN reported."
-------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37914
They admit that such a bill was proposed, but was later revised.
That would fall under my definition of "considering".
Whenever these creationist whackjobs try to sound reasonable,
they fall short.
-E
J. Spaceman
And we are supposed to take their word for the fact that the bill has
been
revised since no revised version has been published.
Here is the evidence whose existence is being denied in this particular
instance.
Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent,
principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this
section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.htm
--
"At first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they ridicule
you,
then
they fight you, then you win."--Gandhi
I just read that bill....
Qu'est ca *****?
Of course, there's this one
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
l
before Congress right now.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court
shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or
otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an
element
of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal,
State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal
capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God
as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Guess who wrote that one up... Judge Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments
nutjob.
Look, we have to live next to "the elepahnt". Would you mind putting a
leash on these guys
-JR
Such a law would violate the long-established Marbury v Madison (IIRC)
principle that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all constitutional
challenges of legislative matters--no exceptions. It also violates the
first amendment.
He would have to get it through as a constitutional amendment--and that is
deliberately made extremely difficult.
No sweat. They could just tack in onto Shrub's marriage ammendment and
get a two fer. There'll great joy in cracker-ville that night I can
tell you. In the immortal words of Zappa, "You need an ark to survive
the drool".
-E
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
