| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"buckeye" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2008 05:23:33 AM |
| Object: |
14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
11.15.07
Mandatory Moment of Silence Blocked!
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/15/mandatory-moment-of-silence-blocked/
01.10.08
Dawn Sherman Featured in the Chicago Tribune
http://friendlyatheist.com/
The court decision
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/Gettleman071115.pdf
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:24:17 AM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
No law can exist in America that has any purpose that is 'apart' from
Constitutionality.
Of course it can.
You're confusing the purpose of a law with the authority to enact it.
What constitutional purpose, for example, does a state law banning dog
fighting serve?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 02:05:53 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an official moment for prayer is
an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of a god,
validity of religion, etc)
The very same constitution gives the courts the power to rule on whether or
not government actions are constitutional.
If a student chooses, on his own accord, to pray then there are myriad
opportunities to do so that do NOT require official school/government
sanction, both within school hours and without.
A kid can pray over his Cheerios, get on his knees as he gets out of bed, on
the bus, in homeroom while aiting for the bell to ring, at the beginning of
class (not in the middle, he might mss somethign), as he exam is being
passed out, lunch, recess, ......
It is _only_ because of hte deisre of religionists to force their fablles on
others that school prayer rules exist at all.
Larry
So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.
Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of any
earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).
I think what's driving the injunction is fear of an ulterior motive on
the part of those who ratified the law. You've said this in so many
words, and I suspect it's also what drove the judge to find "vagueness"
where none had existed before.
That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.
Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form of
government.
Read Kitzmiller
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf> to see to
what extent they will lie and what a conservative, Republican, Christian
judge had to say about their behavior. Christians should be embarrassed
about how dishonest some of their coreligionists are.
There are zealots on both sides of the political spectrum that care little
for law or due process. If you think this sort of behavior is limited to
the far right you're naive. Citing their behavior is hardly relevant.
The issue at hand is this law and this decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 02:42:14 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that state
think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an official moment for prayer is
an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of a god,
validity of religion, etc)
....only if that prayer were mandatory, which is not the case here; only
the moment of silence is; what the student does during that moment is up
to him or her.
This is not establishment, it is accommodation. And it's well within
the rights of state governments to make such and accommodation provided
it does not favor one set of spiritual believes over another.
If a student chooses, on his own accord, to pray then there are myriad
opportunities to do so that do NOT require official school/government
sanction, both within school hours and without...
Irrelevant. The only issue the court can or should rule on is whether
this violates the establishment clause. It's not their job to define
how much "opportunity" to pray is enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 05:18:24 AM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZhnw4C7uxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that
state think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say
that there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within
a public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an official moment for prayer
is an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of
a god, validity of religion, etc)
...only if that prayer were mandatory, which is not the case here;
The government is not to establish religion in any manner at all. Making
participation optional does not make it constitutional.
only
the moment of silence is; what the student does during that moment is up
to him or her.
Irrelevant.
This is not establishment, it is accommodation. And it's well within the
rights of state governments to make such and accommodation provided it
does not favor one set of spiritual believes over another.
It favors believers over non-believers. It favors believer who accept
government involvement over those who do not.
If a student chooses, on his own accord, to pray then there are myriad
opportunities to do so that do NOT require official school/government
sanction, both within school hours and without...
Irrelevant. The only issue the court can or should rule on is whether
this violates the establishment clause. It's not their job to define how
much "opportunity" to pray is enough.
You are correct, and it has violated the establishment clause. Making it
voluntary does not change that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 10:33:39 AM |
|
|
thomas p. wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:LradnZhnw4C7uxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that
state think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say
that there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within
a public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an official moment for prayer
is an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of
a god, validity of religion, etc)
...only if that prayer were mandatory, which is not the case here;
The government is not to establish religion in any manner at all. Making
participation optional does not make it constitutional.
Neither does mandating a moment of silence to be used as the individual
student sees fit. What's your point?
only
the moment of silence is; what the student does during that moment is up
to him or her.
Irrelevant.
If it's not favoring religion, which it clearly is not, then it's
entirely relevant to the case.
It favors believers over non-believers. It favors believer who accept
government involvement over those who do not.
How does it do this? Please be specific and use the language of the law
itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 06:45:20 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZhnw4C7uxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that
state think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say
that there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within
a public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an official moment for prayer
is an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of
a god, validity of religion, etc)
...only if that prayer were mandatory, which is not the case here; only
the moment of silence is; what the student does during that moment is up
to him or her.
Except that _is_ the case here. The moment of silence was mandatory.
BTW, do you really understand procedurallly what a MOS is?
The kids themselves are in a classroom during an official class perios. The
bell has rung, they are in hteir seats,a nd the teacher is peroforming
offcial administrtive and instrcutional functions, --- homeroom _is _ a
class.
Students are not supposed to talk in class, thus thuiis is _not_ and
interruption of their gab time.
It affects ONLY the teacher, and the teacher;s partcicpation is interpreted
as an offical sanction of he event.
There is absolutely no prohibition, for ex., of a student praying during
attendance
Larry
This is not establishment, it is accommodation. And it's well within the
rights of state governments to make such and accommodation provided it
does not favor one set of spiritual believes over another.
If a student chooses, on his own accord, to pray then there are myriad
opportunities to do so that do NOT require official school/government
sanction, both within school hours and without...
Irrelevant. The only issue the court can or should rule on is whether
this violates the establishment clause. It's not their job to define how
much "opportunity" to pray is enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 10:29:43 AM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
Except that _is_ the case here. The moment of silence was mandatory.
.... as was the case with the old law. The only difference is who does
the mandating.
BTW, do you really understand procedurallly what a MOS is?
Yep, had one every school day from 1st grade to 12th.
The kids themselves are in a classroom during an official class perios. The
bell has rung, they are in hteir seats,a nd the teacher is peroforming
offcial administrtive and instrcutional functions, --- homeroom _is _ a
class.
Students are not supposed to talk in class, thus thuiis is _not_ and
interruption of their gab time.
It affects ONLY the teacher, and the teacher;s partcicpation is interpreted
as an offical sanction of he event.
The teachers are not the ones alleged harmed by this suit. I'm not sure
what you're arguing here, but it's not this case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:26:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:29:43 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
Except that _is_ the case here. The moment of silence was mandatory.
... as was the case with the old law. The only difference is who does
the mandating.
Could you expalin what you mean by that?
BTW, do you really understand procedurallly what a MOS is?
Yep, had one every school day from 1st grade to 12th.
The kids themselves are in a classroom during an official class perios. The
bell has rung, they are in hteir seats,a nd the teacher is peroforming
offcial administrtive and instrcutional functions, --- homeroom _is _ a
class.
Students are not supposed to talk in class, thus thuiis is _not_ and
interruption of their gab time.
It affects ONLY the teacher, and the teacher;s partcicpation is interpreted
as an offical sanction of he event.
The teachers are not the ones alleged harmed by this suit. I'm not sure
what you're arguing here, but it's not this case.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:36:24 AM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:29:43 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
Except that _is_ the case here. The moment of silence was mandatory.
... as was the case with the old law. The only difference is who does
the mandating.
Could you expalin what you mean by that?
This case is about alleged harm to students, i.e. that they will be
compelled to engage in a activity that violates the establishment clause
and their free exercise of (non) religion. If that's true then the same
came be said for old law since the teacher could mandate the MOS under
that law. From the students' perspective, what's the difference between
a MOS that is mandated by the state vs. one mandated by the teacher? In
both cases they are being compelled to perform the very same act.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snicker" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 12:21:07 AM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 2:05=EF=BF=BDpm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"LibertySR" <nos...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ1nw4DmahXanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
momentofsilencefor prayer.
Says who? =EF=BF=BDThose elected to represent the will of the people in =
that state
think otherwise. =EF=BF=BDWho are you (or who is any court judge) to say=
that
there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within a
public school.
The constitution says so --- setting aside an officialmomentfor prayer is
an offical establishment of prayer and all that implies (existence of a go=
d,
validity of religion, =EF=BF=BDetc)
The very same constitution gives the courts the power to rule on whether o=
r
not government actions are constitutional.
If a student chooses, on his own accord, =EF=BF=BDto pray then there are m=
yriad
opportunities to do so that do NOT require official school/government
sanction, both within school hours and without.
A kid can pray over his Cheerios, get on his knees as he gets out of bed, =
on
the bus, in homeroom while aiting for the bell =EF=BF=BDto ring, at the be=
ginning of
class (not in the middle, he might mss somethign), as he exam is being
passed out, lunch, recess, ......
It is _only_ because of hte deisre of religionists to force their fablles =
on
others that school prayer rules exist at all.
Larry
So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois=
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.
Hardly. =EF=BF=BDMy point is that the old law was no less mandatory in i=
ts way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of an=
y
earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).
I think what's driving the injunction is fear of an ulterior motive on=
the part of those who ratified the law. =EF=BF=BD You've said this in =
so many
words, and I suspect it's also what drove the judge to find "vagueness=
"
where none had existed before.
That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.
Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form =
of
government.
Read Kitzmiller
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf> to see to
what extent they will lie and what a conservative, Republican, Christia=
n
judge had to say about their behavior. Christians should be embarrassed=
about how dishonest some of their coreligionists are.
There are zealots on both sides of the political spectrum that care litt=
le
for law or due process. =EF=BF=BDIf you think this sort of behavior is l=
imited to
the far right you're naive. =EF=BF=BDCiting their behavior is hardly rel=
evant.
The issue at hand is this law and this decision.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The problem with the moment of silence is that when a moment of
silence is observed an atheist's child may begin praying and then
later slipping out behind his/her parent's back and attending
religious services on Saturday or Sunday.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 03:11:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:21:07 -0800 (PST), snicker
<johnnaishwerner@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
The problem with the moment of silence is that when a moment of
silence is observed an atheist's child may begin praying and then
later slipping out behind his/her parent's back and attending
religious services on Saturday or Sunday.
That's a joke, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "snicker" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
15 Jan 2008 02:59:28 AM |
|
|
On Jan 14, 3:11=EF=BF=BDam, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:21:07 -0800 (PST), snicker
<johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
The problem with the moment of silence is that when a moment of
silence is observed an atheist's child may begin praying and then
later slipping out behind his/her parent's back and attending
religious services on Saturday or Sunday.
That's a joke, right?
Yes, it is a joke. I was poking fun at the people who take
"separation of church and state" to ridiculous extremes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 05:40:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:41:24 +1030, Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:21:07 -0800 (PST), snicker
<johnnaishwerner@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
The problem with the moment of silence is that when a moment of
silence is observed an atheist's child may begin praying and then
later slipping out behind his/her parent's back and attending
religious services on Saturday or Sunday.
That's a joke, right?
No, it's a crazymotherfucker wet dream.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://feeds.feedburner.com/SL/thegreen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
14 Jan 2008 06:14:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:41:24 +1030, in alt.atheism
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
<5p9mo3hmdloh4bqf41ar7ai0thlr6jdr4k@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:21:07 -0800 (PST), snicker
<johnnaishwerner@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
The problem with the moment of silence is that when a moment of
silence is observed an atheist's child may begin praying and then
later slipping out behind his/her parent's back and attending
religious services on Saturday or Sunday.
That's a joke, right?
Of course. Maybe the real problem is that the children of "Christians"
will realize that they are not praying to anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 11:53:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:23:07 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
There is no legitimate state purpose in passing a law that includes a
moment of silence for prayer.
Says who? Those elected to represent the will of the people in that
state think otherwise. Who are you (or who is any court judge) to say
that there is or is not a legitimate purpose for a given activity within
a public school.
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
So now, on top of everything else, you think that the State of Illinois
gets to violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers as well as
the students.
Hardly. My point is that the old law was no less mandatory in its way
than the new, yet the old law was never overturned (I am not aware of
any earlier challenges to it; if you are I'd be happy to hear about them).
The INTENT of the law was changed -- quite unnecessarily -- from
something that did not specifically promote religion to something that
did.
I think what's driving the injunction is fear of an ulterior motive on
the part of those who ratified the law. You've said this in so many
words, and I suspect it's also what drove the judge to find "vagueness"
where none had existed before.
That's what happens when supposed Christians have a long and
well-documented trail of lies in trying to get around the First
Amendment and force their religious doctrines on others.
Overturning a law because you don't like its advocates is hardly sound
legal reasoning and is, one could argue, completely counter to our form
of government.
Read Kitzmiller
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf> to see to
what extent they will lie and what a conservative, Republican, Christian
judge had to say about their behavior. Christians should be embarrassed
about how dishonest some of their coreligionists are.
There are zealots on both sides of the political spectrum that care
little for law or due process. If you think this sort of behavior is
limited to the far right you're naive. Citing their behavior is hardly
relevant. The issue at hand is this law and this decision.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 02:27:13 PM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
The INTENT of the law was changed -- quite unnecessarily -- from
something that did not specifically promote religion to something that
did.
This is just silly. Succeeding legislatures can change existing law for
whatever reasons they like. So long as the new law does not violate the
Constitution the **need** (or lack thereof) for changing the law is not
an issue for the courts.
Additionally, the 1969 law made specific accommodation for prayer:
"This period shall not be conducted as a religious
exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent
reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."
The only material differences between the old and new law are the title
and the fact that students are compelled to observe the moment of
silence under the authority of the state law vs under the authority of a
public employee (i.e. a teacher).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 06:38:45 PM |
|
|
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Legislation is not passed in a vacuum,without a purpose.
Larry
The INTENT of the law was changed -- quite unnecessarily -- from
something that did not specifically promote religion to something that
did.
This is just silly. Succeeding legislatures can change existing law for
whatever reasons they like. So long as the new law does not violate the
Constitution the **need** (or lack thereof) for changing the law is not an
issue for the courts.
Additionally, the 1969 law made specific accommodation for prayer:
"This period shall not be conducted as a religious
exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent
reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."
The only material differences between the old and new law are the title
and the fact that students are compelled to observe the moment of silence
under the authority of the state law vs under the authority of a public
employee (i.e. a teacher).
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 10:20:49 AM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:00:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
Do you mean where it says in the court decision, "A vague law is
especially troublesome when, as in the instant case, “the uncertainty
induced by the statute threatens to inhibit the exercise of
constitutionally protected rights.”
Okpalobi v. Foster, 190 F.3d 337, 358 (5th Cir. 1999), (quoting
Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 79, 391 (1979) (citations omitted)). In
that instance, the court’s standard of review is more stringent; a
vague law that chills First Amendment rights is void on its face “even
when [the law] could have had some legitimate application.” Id.
Obviously the court DID see it as a constitutional issue.
Perhaps it's where they say, "The vagueness of the the Silent
Reflection and Student Prayer Act creates yet another possible
constitutional problem–potential violations of the Establishment
Clause of the Constitution. “Families entrust public schools with the
education of t he children, but condition their trust on the
understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance
religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the
student and his or her family.Students in such institutions are
impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.” Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584 (1987).
Nope. Now they're going to the Establishment Clause.
Well, how about this? "A period of silence that forces children to
consider prayer crosses the line by “convey[ing] or attempting to
convey the message that children should use the moment of silence for
prayer,” in a possible violation of the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 73 (1985)."
Oh, darn. There's that Establishment Clause again.
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:20:25 AM |
|
|
3921 Dead wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
<snip>
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "3921 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 12:18:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:20:25 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
3921 Dead wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
<snip>
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
Go back and read it again. The decision -- and it was a decision --
will doubtlessly be appealed. If it is not, then it stands as case
law. If it is, it is case law until and unless a higher court
overrules.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I’m registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:20:25 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<_O2dnSpm1obE1RfanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@comcast.com>:
3921 Dead wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
<snip>
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
Your argument shows us that you don't understand judicial process. It
would be inappropriate of you to tell the judge that he was wrong in his
decision because you didn't understand what he was doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:39:26 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
Your argument shows us that you don't understand judicial process. It
would be inappropriate of you to tell the judge that he was wrong in his
decision because you didn't understand what he was doing.
The statement was made that this law was found unconstitutional. That
statement is wrong. An injunction is not the same thing. If you feel
differently then I submit it is you we need to learn more about the
"judicial process."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:44:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:39:26 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneevWupT0RfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
Your argument shows us that you don't understand judicial process. It
would be inappropriate of you to tell the judge that he was wrong in his
decision because you didn't understand what he was doing.
The statement was made that this law was found unconstitutional. That
statement is wrong.
No, it is not wrong. The preliminary injunction implies that the law is
unconstitutional. IF you insist on black and white thinking then the law
was found unconstitional.
An injunction is not the same thing. If you feel
differently then I submit it is you we need to learn more about the
"judicial process."
The injunction was the action of the judge. The decision of the judge
tells us that he preliminarily finds the law to be unconstitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 08:42:14 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pcjko35r2j21cnshmjhhvolu98k2s2uqcu@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:39:26 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneevWupT0RfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
Obviously the court is preparing an injunction pending review by
higher courts based on the constitutionality of the law. If all the
higher courts deny cert so they can watch the football game instead,
then this court's ruling will stand.
With this statement you actually agree with my point. The court made
no
**finding** of constitutionality, but merely the assumption of one
leading to the injunction. I agree the judge is trying to lay the
ground work for such a finding. Let's hope the next judge to review
the
case has more respect for due process and democracy than this one.
Your argument shows us that you don't understand judicial process. It
would be inappropriate of you to tell the judge that he was wrong in his
decision because you didn't understand what he was doing.
The statement was made that this law was found unconstitutional. That
statement is wrong.
No, it is not wrong. The preliminary injunction implies that the law is
unconstitutional. IF you insist on black and white thinking then the law
was found unconstitional.
An injunction is not the same thing. If you feel
differently then I submit it is you we need to learn more about the
"judicial process."
The injunction was the action of the judge. The decision of the judge
tells us that he preliminarily finds the law to be unconstitutional.
And that the harm caused by this unconstitutional provision is so strong
that it is made null pending final review.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:48:41 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
No, it is not wrong. The preliminary injunction implies that the law is
unconstitutional. IF you insist on black and white thinking then the law
was found unconstitional.
It implies nothing. It states the judges belief that there is a strong
likelihood of that finding. That is simply not the same as finding of
unconstitutionality. The former is a guess, the latter is case law.
An injunction is not the same thing. If you feel
differently then I submit it is you we need to learn more about the
"judicial process."
The injunction was the action of the judge. The decision of the judge
tells us that he preliminarily finds the law to be unconstitutional.
I don't think we're going to agree on this point, and it's not central
to the discussion, IMO. Let's give it a rest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:09:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfSvWur8pxfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
If the judge did not think that there was a strong likelihood that the
plaintiff would win on the merits (that is, that the statute as written
is an uncontitutional violation of the pupils' First Amendment rights),
he would not have issued the preliminary injunction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LibertySR" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:21:06 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfSvWur8pxfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
If the judge did not think that there was a strong likelihood that the
plaintiff would win on the merits (that is, that the statute as written
is an uncontitutional violation of the pupils' First Amendment rights),
he would not have issued the preliminary injunction.
I agree he saw that likelihood. That is not a finding, however, which
is my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
13 Jan 2008 11:36:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:21:06 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdneuvWuof1RfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:20:49 -0500, in alt.atheism
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in
<87SdnfSvWur8pxfanZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com>:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"LibertySR" <nosend@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LradnZ5nw4A8vxTanZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...
3921 Dead wrote:
Doesn't matter what they think. They aren't empowered to usurp the
constitution.
And neither are the courts. The statement was not about the
constitutionality of the legislation, but its "purpose."
Wrong.
The decision was that the purpose of hte legislation was unconstiutional.
Read the decision again and try to understand the difference between an
injunction and the ruling of a law as unconstitutional.
If the judge did not think that there was a strong likelihood that the
plaintiff would win on the merits (that is, that the statute as written
is an uncontitutional violation of the pupils' First Amendment rights),
he would not have issued the preliminary injunction.
I agree he saw that likelihood. That is not a finding, however, which
is my point.
It's a preliminary injunction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 14 yr old stops Ill. Moment of Silence Law |
12 Jan 2008 06:26:09 PM |
|
|
LibertySR <nosend@comcast.net> wrote:
The only material differences between the old and new law are the title
and the fact that students are compelled to observe the moment of
silence under the authority of the state law vs under the authority of a
public employee (i.e. a teacher).
The material difference is that the law now explicit makes a positive
statement about religion, that was not necessary to the supposedly
non-religious purpose of the law, making it an establishment of
religion.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
TACOMA, Wash. - A man charged with kidnapping, raping and killinga 12-year-old girl was referred to CPS By law enforcement officers in 2004,CPS Did Nothing!
5-year-old girl was sexually abused by her foster family even asher birth parents were frantically trying to regain custody.
Parents ask help for troubled 13-year-old son: In a foster home,a foster sibling sexually abused him..
SAN ANTONIO -- Foster Parents Charged In 8-year-old Girl's Death
Dying in silence: The recovering drug addicts were told in early2003 they needed to take their 22-month-old daughter back to their crampedmotel room or risk losing the girl to the child welfare system forever.
Las Vagas -- Private Investigator Hired to Find 3-Year-Old EverlyseCabrera
an old priest's clumsy attempt to come out of the closet?
PECKER CHECKER -- Oh, My Old GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrandpa!
| OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ Oklahoma County prosecutors have charged a DHSemployee with a misdemeanor for allegedly not believing a 5-year-old girlwho said she had been sexually abused.
A mother said she wanted help controlling her 14-year-old fosterchild. Ten minutes later, the boy was dead.
CPS worker accused of having sex with 15-year-old girl he was supervising:the girl told police, her child was present during the incidents, most ofwhich took place in the caseworker's car.
Foster mom sentenced in death of 4-year-old
Albuquerque, NM -- 14-year-old girl testifies against foster father
Re: homosexual Priest, Yet Another, Sodomizes 6 Year Old
Riverside County social services chief resigns: ignored suggestedimprovements in Child Protective Services made the 2005 torture-killing of3-year-old virtually inevitable.
|
|
|
