| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2006 05:38:09 AM |
| Object: |
3 laws establishted by Everson, while under attack, still survive |
The three laws establishted by Everson while under attack still survive
They were and are
EVERSON MADE LAW WITH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING
This was the beginning of the legal doctrine that separates the sacred and
the secular aspects of a religiously based organization, and holds that
public money may flow to its secular, but not its sacred aspects.
EVERSON MADE LAW BY APPLYING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES
VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME
EVERSON MADE LAW AS FOLLOWS
the legal doctrine of no aid to religion, either to specific religious
groups or to religion generally
========================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW WITH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING
It was this that Eehnquist used as a foindation for his journey that
resulted in the Cleveland voucher scam being upheld.
It was basicaly this ruling that was the foundation that the cnservative
justiced in the 80s and 90s used to begin the journy to accomodation of
religion in various USSC cases.
Thus obviously this law is alive and well.
===================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW BY APPLYING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES
VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME
Inspite of being under attack by Justice Thomas, the theocrats and other
varieties y of Radical Religious Right the Establishment Cluase is still
applied against the astate via the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Thus, obviously this law is still alive and well.
=======================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW AS FOLLOWS
the legal doctrine of no aid to religion, either to specific religious
groups or to religion generally
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause: (The no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
In spite of the fact that elements 5-5d have been seriously weakned if not
outright trashed the other elements 1-4d and 6-6d still remain effective
and pretty much untouched.
Thus, that law too remains well and alive to this day.
===================================================================
************************************
TESTS:
************************************
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause. These tests were rooted in the definition given by the Everson
Court.
************************************
The LEMON TEST
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.
2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.
************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST
Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST
Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."
************************************
THE COERCION TEST
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
===================================================
I GUESS NOW THERE IS A NEUTRALITY TEST AS WELL.
Summation:
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/6fe11a2dfaaaafbe?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6F22310D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/thread/6dd824f3ed07470c/3aaae9dec22f8576?lnk=st&q=Death+blow+to+Laffs+Everson+theory++++PART+I+I&rnum=1&hl=en#3aaae9dec22f8576
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4632110D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
More evidence against you
Here is what you are trying to claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9fec1bbe7c9ef6a8?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6235210D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/d9d5fa0da70cac50?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3DE2370D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/3b5f809bae9b89bf?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1FE2270D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/3d851618f154191e?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N24F1270D
Bucky, bucky. You still fall short.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/4b0f77527672d166?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50F1470D
Education for Laffs
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c9d150e5f0fd64a?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1AE2270D
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: 3 laws establishted by Everson, while under attack, still survive; the Court cannot legislate from the bench |
28 Apr 2006 01:20:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The three laws establishted by Everson while under attack still survive
They were and are
EVERSON MADE LAW WITH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING
This was the beginning of the legal doctrine that separates the sacred and
the secular aspects of a religiously based organization, and holds that
public money may flow to its secular, but not its sacred aspects.
EVERSON MADE LAW BY APPLYING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES
VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME
EVERSON MADE LAW AS FOLLOWS
the legal doctrine of no aid to religion, either to specific religious
groups or to religion generally
Given the title of this thread, secularists are evidently clueless that
the Courts do not have legislative powers. Jefferson warned about
judges who usurp legislative power:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
The reason that the people are letting renegade judges walk all over
their religious freedoms is because the people are constitutionally
ignorant:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/13986532.htm
The people need to wake up and understand what the Constitution
actually says about their religious freedoms. Then the people will
hopefully heed Lincolns advice for dealing with corrupt judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
========================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW WITH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING
It was this that Eehnquist used as a foindation for his journey that
resulted in the Cleveland voucher scam being upheld.
It was basicaly this ruling that was the foundation that the cnservative
justiced in the 80s and 90s used to begin the journy to accomodation of
religion in various USSC cases.
Thus obviously this law is alive and well.
===================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW BY APPLYING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES
VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME
Inspite of being under attack by Justice Thomas, the theocrats and other
varieties y of Radical Religious Right the Establishment Cluase is still
applied against the astate via the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Thus, obviously this law is still alive and well.
=======================================================
EVERSON MADE LAW AS FOLLOWS
the legal doctrine of no aid to religion, either to specific religious
groups or to religion generally
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause: (The no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
In spite of the fact that elements 5-5d have been seriously weakned if not
outright trashed the other elements 1-4d and 6-6d still remain effective
and pretty much untouched.
Thus, that law too remains well and alive to this day.
===================================================================
************************************
TESTS:
************************************
Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools,
the Supreme Court has developed "tests" to be applied to religious
practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment
Clause. These tests were rooted in the definition given by the Everson
Court.
************************************
The LEMON TEST
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the
Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:
1.It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any
non-religious purpose.
2.The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.
3.Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government
with a religion.
************************************
The HISTORICAL TEST
Based on Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Requires a unambiguous and
unbroken history of more than 200 years. BTW, the history that was employed
by the Court in Marsh v. Chambers was flawed. See:
Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
************************************
THE ENDORSEMENT TEST
Drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the
practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by
conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted'
over other beliefs."
************************************
THE COERCION TEST
Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious
practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to
force or coerce individuals to participate. The Court has defined that:
"Unconstitutional coercion occurs when:
(1) the government directs
(2) a formal religious exercise
(3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."
===================================================
I GUESS NOW THERE IS A NEUTRALITY TEST AS WELL.
Summation:
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/6fe11a2dfaaaafbe?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z6F22310D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory PART I I
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_frm/thread/6dd824f3ed07470c/3aaae9dec22f8576?lnk=st&q=Death+blow+to+Laffs+Everson+theory++++PART+I+I&rnum=1&hl=en#3aaae9dec22f8576
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4632110D
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
More evidence against you
Here is what you are trying to claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/9fec1bbe7c9ef6a8?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6235210D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/d9d5fa0da70cac50?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3DE2370D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/3b5f809bae9b89bf?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A1FE2270D
AND
Death blow to Laffs Everson theory (not)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/3d851618f154191e?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N24F1270D
Bucky, bucky. You still fall short.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/4b0f77527672d166?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50F1470D
Education for Laffs
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/4c9d150e5f0fd64a?hl=en&
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q1AE2270D
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: 3 laws establishted by Everson, while under attack, still survive;the Court cannot legislate from the bench |
28 Apr 2006 09:20:51 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
The three laws establishted by Everson while under attack still survive
They were and are
EVERSON MADE LAW WITH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING
This was the beginning of the legal doctrine that separates the sacred and
the secular aspects of a religiously based organization, and holds that
public money may flow to its secular, but not its sacred aspects.
EVERSON MADE LAW BY APPLYING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO THE STATES
VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME
EVERSON MADE LAW AS FOLLOWS
the legal doctrine of no aid to religion, either to specific religious
groups or to religion generally
Given the title of this thread, secularists are evidently clueless that
the Courts do not have legislative powers. Jefferson warned about
judges who usurp legislative power:
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
Exactly. Which is why we must stop the GOP-leaning judges in the
Supreme Court from legislating from the bench.
For example, when Alito was nominated to the federal bench, he
frequently dissented from everyone else that he perceived as liberal.
As an example: When Planned Parenthood vs Casey arrived in the 3rd
Circuit, he was the sole dissenting opinion, which, if Alito had his
way, would outlaw abortion.
Another one is when, in 1997, Alito dissented against a woman who was
discriminated against on the basis of race. Had his vote stood, the
precedent that Alito would've set would've allowed employers to
discriminate on the basis of race.
I have many more examples.
The reason that the people are letting renegade
....conservative...
judges walk all over
their religious freedoms is because the people are constitutionally
ignorant:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/13986532.htm
I see nothing in that article that shows a trampling of religious
freedoms. Do you?
The people need to wake up and understand what the Constitution
actually says about their religious freedoms. Then the people will
hopefully heed Lincolns advice for dealing with corrupt judges:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
And how, exactly, is the Constitution being "overthrown"? That Lincoln
quote, though, shows exactly why we need to overthrow Bush, a man who
would pervert the Constitution if he had his way.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Foster couple, Liz and David Carroll Jr: left Fiesel bound in a blanketin a playpen in a closet of their home while they went to Kentucky, Theyreturned two days later to find the boy dead, state is trying to make theagency "Lifeway" a scapegoat?
Bin Ladin's God Wants You to Die for Him, While Jesus Wants to Die for YOU
>> inmates died while under interrogation <<
THE 4 STAGES OF ISLAMIC TREACHERY: THE TACTICS OF ISLAMISTS . Take note and take heed while you can still do something before your daughters becomes slaves for a bearded Jihadi Muslim freedom fighter who would be regarded as a holy warrior of Islam o
While in Reserves, Kerry met with Communists
Osama Plotting Against America, While Bush Plays Fake War in Iraq (GOP, The Party of Treason)
Killers International Plan While Democrats Hate Bush
Today's Founder Quote: Those who enterprise in Capitalistic pursuits get ahead while the State benefits by minimum levy
| Gov. Gibbons signs bill: The bill was introduced in response to astudy that found 11 children died of abuse while in the protective custodyof the Clark County Department of Child and Family Services between 2001and 2004.
Redmond foster father pleads guilty to sexual exploitation: Foryears, Fabregas continued to lie on his applications while DSHS continuedto overlook the mounting evidence of abuse and neglect...
.
Nevada's Foster Children Have Rights, Federal Judge Rules: The orderwritten by Judge Robert Jones green-lights a lawsuit filed on behalf of childrenwho were injured or killed while in foster care.
Stevens County man was sentenced to 16 years in prison Tuesday forraping a client while he was a mental health counselor for Child ProtectiveServices.
Nevada Child Abuse Bill on Way to Becoming Law: a study that found11 children died of abuse while in the protective custody of the Clark CountyDepartment of Child and Family Services between 2001 and 2004.
Mary, Mother of the Lord, while still Pregnant
|
|
|
