The First Amendment: A question of limits

Sociology > Education > The First Amendment: A question of limits

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	09 Feb 2006 06:55:02 AM
Object:	The First Amendment: A question of limits

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/08/67013
[excerpt][
February 8, 2006
The First Amendment: A question of limits
EDITOR?S NOTE:
By Britt johnsen
bjohnsen@mndaily.com
The right to free speech, religion, press, assembly and petition are basic
First Amendment rights.
But many arguments still prevail about how far each right should go. Some
findings are contradictory, while others indicate the ebb and flow of
trends in opinions about the First Amendment.
This year's State of the First Amendment survey which surveys annually how
Americans view their First Amendment freedoms reveals that 70 percent of
Americans would be OK with posting the Ten Commandments in government
buildings. Additionally, it says 85 percent of Americans would agree with
the commandments being one document among many historical documents in
public buildings.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	10 Feb 2006 11:05:29 AM

"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:

:|>
:|> The right to free speech, religion, press, assembly and petition are basic
:|> First Amendment rights.
:|[....]
:|
:|I'm somewhat confused by this statement because the Amendment does
:|not mention the "right to free speech, religion, press" ...
:|
:|Article the third [Amendment I]
:|
:| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
:| or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
:| speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
:| assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
:| grievances.
:|
:|... it speaks of the making of laws, laws that cannot establish a religion
:|nor prohibit the free exercise thereof, OR abridging (i.e. curtail) "freedom"
:|of speech, etc. Freedoms are permissions, not rights. Freedoms are not
:|unlimited, rights are absolute. You cannot speak or print 'anything', there
:|are limits in civilised society.
:|
:|That's my understanding, based on the writings of Ayn Rand. Rights are
:|unalienable. The right to life, property, etc. Rights are actions -- the right
:|to property [missing in our Canadian constitution!] is not the right to a
:|thing, but if you earn it, you have the right to own or dispose of it.
:|
:|The only rights declared in this Amendment are "the right of the people
:|peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
:|grievances."
:|

Could you point out what USSC opinions were authored by Ayn Rand?
What role she played in the development of Con Law?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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: "Alan Illeman"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	10 Feb 2006 05:24:22 PM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:9uhpu1lbg7h5772lauk474gcc8t3u0ac3o@4ax.com...

"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:

Could you point out what USSC opinions were authored by Ayn Rand?
What role she played in the development of Con Law?

I agree that opinions by *anyone* don't really matter since it is the
history of precedents by the USSC that determines the 'Law', but
nevertheless you are not here by accident, you have an opinion
and so do I. Are 'freedoms' equal to 'rights' in your opinion?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	11 Feb 2006 11:20:11 AM

"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:9uhpu1lbg7h5772lauk474gcc8t3u0ac3o@4ax.com...
:|> "Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:qsemu11bbfiv6n01rq4jvdh4k87npjptl6@4ax.com...
:|> >:|> http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/08/67013
:|> >:|> [excerpt][
:|> >:|> February 8, 2006
:|> >:|> The First Amendment: A question of limits
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> EDITOR?S NOTE:
:|> >:|> By Britt johnsen
:|> >:|>

:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> The right to free speech, religion, press, assembly and petition are basic
:|> >:|> First Amendment rights.
:|> >:|[....]
:|> >:|
:|> >:|I'm somewhat confused by this statement because the Amendment does
:|> >:|not mention the "right to free speech, religion, press" ...
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Article the third [Amendment I]
:|> >:|
:|> >:| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
:|> >:| or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
:|> >:| speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
:|> >:| assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
:|> >:| grievances.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|... it speaks of the making of laws, laws that cannot establish a religion
:|> >:|nor prohibit the free exercise thereof, OR abridging (i.e. curtail) "freedom"
:|> >:|of speech, etc. Freedoms are permissions, not rights. Freedoms are not
:|> >:|unlimited, rights are absolute. You cannot speak or print 'anything', there
:|> >:|are limits in civilised society.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|That's my understanding, based on the writings of Ayn Rand. Rights are
:|> >:|unalienable. The right to life, property, etc. Rights are actions -- the right
:|> >:|to property [missing in our Canadian constitution!] is not the right to a
:|> >:|thing, but if you earn it, you have the right to own or dispose of it.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|The only rights declared in this Amendment are "the right of the people
:|> >:|peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
:|> >:|grievances."
:|> >:|
:|>
:|> Could you point out what USSC opinions were authored by Ayn Rand?
:|> What role she played in the development of Con Law?
:|
:|I agree that opinions by *anyone* don't really matter since it is the
:|history of precedents by the USSC that determines the 'Law', but
:|nevertheless you are not here by accident, you have an opinion
:|and so do I. Are 'freedoms' equal to 'rights' in your opinion?

Since you didn't actually answer my question I will return the favor:
WHAT I AM ABOUT
(1) The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet
newsgroups to further their goals
I am returning the favor My posts take two forms:
(A) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, Prin=may soucre documents, scholars, etc.
including our own website. (My replies fall under this almost exclusively)
(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.
I usually identify these with the comments "THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats" for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
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
(2) While I do have some structured formal legal training, and thus am not
just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't interpret
the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting to clarify.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************************
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
.

User: "Alan Illeman"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	12 Feb 2006 08:08:36 AM

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:s07su11oa5uglkfn3o2jh3og7vjc6j04iu@4ax.com...

"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:

Since you didn't actually answer my question I will return the favor:

[...]
Of course Ayn Rand didn't do those things.
Since you didn't actually answer my question I will repeat it..
Are 'freedoms' equal to 'rights' in your opinion?
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	11 Feb 2006 07:32:52 PM

wrote:
<snipped for brevity>

:|
:|I agree that opinions by *anyone* don't really matter since it is the
:|history of precedents by the USSC that determines the 'Law', but
:|nevertheless you are not here by accident, you have an opinion
:|and so do I. Are 'freedoms' equal to 'rights' in your opinion?

Why are you ignoring that the states never surrendered their power to
legislate religion? The only reason that people think that the
Founding Fathers had decided on absolute church-state separation is a
combination of constitutional ignorance and corrupt, anti-religious
expression Justices.

(B) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, saying, posting publishing
etc.

I usually identify these with the comments "THEOCRACY IN ACTION
Porpaganda, misinformation. misrepresenting, lies, the tools of the
theocrats" for that is what it is

Since the 14th made it unconstitutional for theocrats to pirate 10th
protected sovereign state power to cram their beliefs down your throat,
what is the problem?

BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it

That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present

<snipped for brevity>
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits	12 Feb 2006 12:48:32 AM

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

Why are you ignoring that the states never surrendered their power to
legislate religion?

Of course they did. The Southern states did surrendered their
sovereignty "unconditionally" as the price of ending the Civil War.
Reconstruction then applied the destruction of state sovereignty to
all the states.
lojbab
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; discussion fails 10th A. test	12 Feb 2006 01:23:51 AM

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

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

Why are you ignoring that the states never surrendered their power to
legislate religion?

LIAR! :^(
The 10th Amendment which protects the sovereign powers of the states, a
"loose canon" amendment that secular Justices cannot afford to draw
attention to, was never repealed. (Consider how the 21st expliticly
repealed the 18th.);
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
In fact, the 10th was still alive and kicking when Justice Reed
commented about it:
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; discussion fails 10th A. test	12 Feb 2006 06:46:12 AM

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

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

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

Why are you ignoring that the states never surrendered their power to
legislate religion?

LIAR! :^(

I do not lie.

The 10th Amendment which protects the sovereign powers of the states,

No it doesn't.

a
"loose canon" amendment that secular Justices cannot afford to draw
attention to, was never repealed.

It was never understood in the way that you interpret it. It never
will be, as a result of the Civil War,

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.

Those last 4 words mean that state sovereignty simply isn't worth as
much as you think it is. A million people died, reserving to
themselves the right to trump the rights of states. There was a short
address at a place called Gettysburg that pointed it out.
The interpretation of what powers are delegated and prohibited by the
Constitution, being a judicable matter, means that your claims fail.
The people could trump the constitution by amending it, but they
won't.

In fact, the 10th was still alive and kicking when Justice Reed
commented about it:

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942

It doesn't mean what you think it does.
You lose, loser.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; discussion fails 10th A. test	12 Feb 2006 01:14:17 PM

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

:|LIAR! :^(
:|
:|The 10th Amendment which protects the sovereign powers of the states, a
:|"loose canon" amendment that secular Justices cannot afford to draw
:|attention to, was never repealed. (Consider how the 21st expliticly
:|repealed the 18th.);
:|
:|10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people.
:|
:|In fact, the 10th was still alive and kicking when Justice Reed
:|commented about it:
:|
:|"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
:|seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
:|one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
:|the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
:|sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
:|to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
:|civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
:|Opelika 1942

One has to wonder why, when this idiot has admitted he knows this case was
overturned why he offers it for anything.
It has no meaning dippy, but, neither does any of your posts
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
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: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; discussion fails 10th A. test	12 Feb 2006 09:27:56 AM

On 11 Feb 2006 23:23:51 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

In fact, the 10th was still alive and kicking when Justice Reed
commented about it:

"comments" are dicta, Freddie
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; that pesky 10th Agai	10 Feb 2006 05:53:07 PM

Alan Illeman wrote:

<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message news:9uhpu1lbg7h5772lauk474gcc8t3u0ac3o@4ax.com...

"Alan Illeman" <illemann@surfbest.net> wrote:

Could you point out what USSC opinions were authored by Ayn Rand?
What role she played in the development of Con Law?

(psst!) Here is Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore,
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is
not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything
mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws
themselves, and of their construction." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at
New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
Also note that Article 5 of the Constitution shows that it is by the
authority of the people, through their representatives, and not your
"glorious," anti-religious expression Justices, who ultimately decide
what the Constitution says.
And let's not forget that both Jefferson and Lincoln warned us about
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
"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
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; that pesky 10th Agai	10 Feb 2006 06:28:03 PM

On 10 Feb 2006 15:53:07 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

(psst!) Here is Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

Psst, freddie
Jefferson is dead
ANYTHING written before, during, or after the
ratification of the constitiution (by delegates) is
nothing more than "dicta"
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; that pesky 10th Agai	11 Feb 2006 03:29:12 PM

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006 15:53:07 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

(psst!) Here is Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

Psst, freddie

Jefferson is dead

ANYTHING written before, during, or after the
ratification of the constitiution (by delegates) is
nothing more than "dicta"

I agree with your implication that Jefferson's words aren't law. But
keep in mind that every time that you post that Jefferson is dead or
that what he wrote isn't law, I'm going to post that your loser Justice
friends used Jefferson's "wall of separation" words about 121 years
after Jefferson died to help justify their treasonous interpretation of
the establishment clause in Everson. Jefferson's words appear in the
last sentence of this scandalous paragraph from Everson:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; that pesky 10th Agai	11 Feb 2006 04:31:36 PM

On 11 Feb 2006 13:29:12 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006 15:53:07 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

(psst!) Here is Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

Psst, freddie

Jefferson is dead

ANYTHING written before, during, or after the
ratification of the constitiution (by delegates) is
nothing more than "dicta"

You simply don't "get it" freddie
Whether it was jefferson, or alfred e. neumann that
said it, the underlying doctrine of keeping government
from religious promotion is quite clear.
Jefferson merely articulated the issue at that
particular time.
It isn't law simply because "jefferson said it",
Freddie
it's doctrine because of the underlying principle of
the ***** thing.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; that pesky 10th again	12 Feb 2006 01:38:05 PM

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 11 Feb 2006 13:29:12 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006 15:53:07 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

(psst!) Here is Jefferson's "secret formula" for interpreting the
Constitution:

Psst, freddie

Jefferson is dead

ANYTHING written before, during, or after the
ratification of the constitiution (by delegates) is
nothing more than "dicta"

You simply don't "get it" freddie

Whether it was jefferson, or alfred e. neumann that
said it, the underlying doctrine of keeping government
from religious promotion is quite clear.

ROTFL
Your "underlying doctrine" is nothing more than the perverted,
politically correct interpretation of the Constitution concerning
absolute church-state separation.

Jefferson merely articulated the issue at that
particular time.

Again and again, don't complain about Jefferson to me. Complain to
your crooked Justice friends who hid behind Jefferson's coat tails 121
years after Jefferson died to help justify their treasonous
interpretation of the establishment clause concerning absolute
church-state separation.

It isn't law simply because "jefferson said it",
Freddie

it's doctrine because of the underlying principle of
the ***** thing.

Talk about denial!
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 11:58:23 AM

wrote:

Americans view their First Amendment freedoms reveals that 70 percent of
Americans would be OK with posting the Ten Commandments in government
buildings. Additionally, it says 85 percent of Americans would agree with
the commandments being one document among many historical documents in
public buildings.

Until people get a grip on the checks and balance of the 1st, 10th and
14th Amendments where our religious freedoms are concerned, were simply
going to be playing cat and mouse with corrupt, anti-religious
expression judges who unlawfully legislate absolute church-state
separation "laws" from the bench.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
14th Amendment, section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

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: "Larry Weisenthal"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 12:28:20 PM

-- 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; --
I think that the above is the problem, in that it is hopelessly
ambiguous.
The really key words are "the free exercise thereof"
The word "free" clearly applies to individuals and not to the state.
One could say that posting the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not
"free" exercise of religion but forced exposure to religion. It would
be prejudicial to the right of the accused to a fair trial under the
secular laws of the state were the jurors forced to walk past religious
documents proclaiming God's laws. For example, let's say that a given
case involved adultery or abortion. Let's say that the accused in
direct testimony took the Lord's name in vain. Jurors should not be
prejudiced against te accused for any of these things, as none of them
are illegal under secular law...only under God's law.
School prayer is the same thing. It's not "free" exercise of religion.
etc. It's exercise of religion forced by the state. That said, I
don't think it's the most important issue of our time and I think that
taking a lead on this is a political loser for Democrats at a time when
there are much more important issues, which require Democrats to be in
political office to address.
- Larry W
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 02:31:14 PM

(Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

Where are you coming from with this "forced" exposure to religion
baloney? :^(
Those 10 Commandments hanging on the courthouse wall...
Ignore them.

It would
be prejudicial to the right of the accused to a fair trial under the
secular laws of the state were the jurors forced to walk past religious
documents proclaiming God's laws.

ROTFL
I beg your pardon sir, but your hatred for our constitutionally
protected religious freedoms is showing.

For example, let's say that a given
case involved adultery or abortion. Let's say that the accused in
direct testimony took the Lord's name in vain. Jurors should not be
prejudiced against te accused for any of these things, as none of them
are illegal under secular law...only under God's law.

I'm sure that secular-minded peer jurists aren't going to concern
themselves with the 10 Commandments.

School prayer is the same thing. It's not "free" exercise of religion.
etc. It's exercise of religion forced by the state. That said, I
don't think it's the most important issue of our time and I think that
taking a lead on this is a political loser for Democrats at a time when
there are much more important issues, which require Democrats to be in
political office to address.

School prayer should be left up to the locals. If school is in 100%
christian community, for example, then school led prayer should not be
discouraged because of perverted interpretations of the Constitution.

- Larry W

User: "c-bee1"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 08:01:26 PM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139517074.276352.35160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:

Where are you coming from with this "forced" exposure to religion
baloney? :^(

Those 10 Commandments hanging on the courthouse wall...

Ignore them.

It would
be prejudicial to the right of the accused to a fair trial under the
secular laws of the state were the jurors forced to walk past religious
documents proclaiming God's laws.

ROTFL

I beg your pardon sir, but your hatred for our constitutionally
protected religious freedoms is showing.

rofl Same lying kook, different day.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	10 Feb 2006 10:11:53 AM

Those 10 Commandments hanging on the courthouse wall...

Ignore them.

Fred, If the government posts religious documents in courthouses, is
that not strongly implied government endorsement of the tenets of those
documents? If jurors are supposed to "ignore" religious documents
posted in courthouses, then why post them at all?
Your point is that I have the freedom to ignore something. But how am
I supposed to ignore something without first noting its presence and
then making a conscious decision to ignore it? And in the process of
noting its presence, I also note where it is (in a government
courthouse) and that must mean that the government endorses the points
of view expressed therein (e.g against adultery, taking the Lord's name
in vain, killing (as opposed to murdering), etc.). Maybe I have
insufficient respect for government bureacrats to be influenced by
their actions. Many jurors do have respect for our courts and for the
people who administer the justice system and are very subject to being
influenced by the environment of the courthouse.
Of course this is potentially prejudicial to certain defendants.
And the idea that prayers should be allowed in public schools with a
100% Christian community (a highly fanciful proposition, to say the
least) presupposes that everyone in the community really is Christian
and really does want their children participating in certain prayers.
But the Bible specifically admonishes against public prayer; so at
least some Christians may object to this practice. What then?
The constitution protects the free expression of religion on on
individual level. It does not protect the right of public (i.e. state)
institutions to endorse religion. Show me where in the Constitution it
protects the right of state institutions to endorse and/or promote
religion.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 02:35:58 PM

On 9 Feb 2006 10:28:20 -0800, "runnswim@aol.com (Larry
Weisenthal)" <runnswim@aol.com> wrote:

School prayer is the same thing. It's not "free" exercise of religion.
etc. It's exercise of religion forced by the state.

It doesn't even have to be "forced"
Anytime a government institution lends "support", or
officially enters into acceptance of religious dogma
(now we aint referring to TEACHING religion) that is
the same as "promotion" of religion
Credibility is associated with institutions.
Schools,---
government institutions---tacitly "look like" they lend
credence to religion if they become part of the
required behavior.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 02:50:52 PM

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.
I can point to a kazillion laws that preclude
GOVERNMENT from setting up religion, or lending support
to religion (like loony Moore)
State Government cannot do what the Federal
Constitution says is a RIGHT of ALL people----to be
free from government associated religion.
Keep saying over and over to yourself that "the civil
war ended any notion of "state supremacy"
Keep saying it, because that's the ONLY truth you need
to "set you free" from your looniness.
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 07:03:05 PM

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.

What a coward! :^(
You continue to ignore that I've been complaining that corrupt judges
are unlawfully legislating the bogus constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.

I can point to a kazillion laws that preclude
GOVERNMENT from setting up religion, or lending support
to religion (like loony Moore)

No you can't. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making such
laws. And the only reason that creationism and intelligent design
isn't taught in the public school classrooms, for example, is because
schools don't want to get dragged in front of corrupt judges who
unlawfully legislate the bogus constitutional principal of absolute
church-state separation from the bench.

State Government cannot do what the Federal
Constitution says is a RIGHT of ALL people----to be
free from government associated religion.

That's your anti-religious expression delirium talking. You're denying
the reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

Keep saying over and over to yourself that "the civil
war ended any notion of "state supremacy"

That's nothing more than a Twilight Zone fantasy. :^(
The Civil War did not change Article 5 of the Constitution which
defines the legal majority of States, the people, who decide through
their representatives what the Constitution says. It's ultimately the
people, not your "glorious," anti-religious expression USSC Justices,
who call the shots in the United States of America.

Keep saying it, because that's the ONLY truth you need
to "set you free" from your looniness.

Say hi to Rod for me if you happen to bump into him.
.

User: "c-bee1"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 08:02:24 PM

"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139529894.733983.153410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.

What a coward! :^(

You continue to ignore that I've been complaining that corrupt judges
are unlawfully legislating the bogus constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.

Same lying kook, different day.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 08:54:35 PM

On 9 Feb 2006 17:03:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.

What a coward! :^(

You continue to ignore that I've been complaining that corrupt judges
are unlawfully legislating the bogus constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.

That's simply because YOU choose to ignore facts,
Freddie
a) Adverse rulings are not "bogus" simply because they
don't coincide with your silly views
b) The matter of church/state separation is a settled
matter.
c) "States rights" dealing with supremacy is settled
law. That's why the rulings handed down arent' going
your way.
Your beliefs are bogus.
THey have no validity.

I can point to a kazillion laws that preclude
GOVERNMENT from setting up religion, or lending support
to religion (like loony Moore)

No you can't. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making such
laws.

GOVERNMENT on ALL levels, Freddie
That's the LAW
Your silly "reading" of constitutional construct is
childish

State Government cannot do what the Federal
Constitution says is a RIGHT of ALL people----to be
free from government associated religion.

That's your anti-religious expression delirium talking. You're denying
the reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

Wrong again
You're denying settled law.

Keep saying over and over to yourself that "the civil
war ended any notion of "state supremacy"

The Civil War did not change Article 5 of the Constitution which
defines the legal majority of States, the people, who decide through
their representatives what the Constitution says.

It's almost pathetic to hear you say that over and over
when it doesn't rise to even a level of stupdity

Keep saying it, because that's the ONLY truth you need
to "set you free" from your looniness.

Say hi to Rod for me if you happen to bump into him.

????
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	09 Feb 2006 09:19:46 PM

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 17:03:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.

What a coward! :^(

You continue to ignore that I've been complaining that corrupt judges
are unlawfully legislating the bogus constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.

That's simply because YOU choose to ignore facts,
Freddie

a) Adverse rulings are not "bogus" simply because they
don't coincide with your silly views

My "silly views" are the reasonable interpretation of the 1st, 10th
Amendments. Justice Reed had likewise noted this "silly view":
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942

b) The matter of church/state separation is a settled
matter.

Wrong!
You don't want people to know that Article 5 of the Constution shows
that it is the people, not your "glorious," anti-religious expression
USSC Justices, who call the shots in the United States of America.

c) "States rights" dealing with supremacy is settled
law. That's why the rulings handed down arent' going
your way.

Your beliefs are bogus.

THey have no validity.

Article 5

I can point to a kazillion laws that preclude
GOVERNMENT from setting up religion, or lending support
to religion (like loony Moore)

No you can't. The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making such
laws.

GOVERNMENT on ALL levels, Freddie

Your self-dishonesty is not my problem.

That's the LAW

Your silly "reading" of constitutional construct is
childish

I'm simply applying basic reading skills and common sense to what is
written in the Constitution.

State Government cannot do what the Federal
Constitution says is a RIGHT of ALL people----to be
free from government associated religion.

That's your anti-religious expression delirium talking. You're denying
the reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

Wrong again

You're denying settled law.

"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
"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

Keep saying over and over to yourself that "the civil
war ended any notion of "state supremacy"

The Civil War did not change Article 5 of the Constitution which
defines the legal majority of States, the people, who decide through
their representatives what the Constitution says.

It's almost pathetic to hear you say that over and over
when it doesn't rise to even a level of stupdity

Ah, your trademark emotional rebuttal.

Keep saying it, because that's the ONLY truth you need
to "set you free" from your looniness.

Say hi to Rod for me if you happen to bump into him.

????

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	10 Feb 2006 10:47:21 AM

In article <1139541585.979120.225120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 17:03:05 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

laffs@'em-all.com wrote:

On 9 Feb 2006 09:58:23 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Name any law that forbids you to practice your
religion, Freddie.

What a coward! :^(

You continue to ignore that I've been complaining that corrupt judges
are unlawfully legislating the bogus constitutional principal of
absolute church-state separation from the bench on a case by case
basis.

That's simply because YOU choose to ignore facts,
Freddie

a) Adverse rulings are not "bogus" simply because they
don't coincide with your silly views

My "silly views" are the reasonable interpretation of the 1st, 10th
Amendments. Justice Reed had likewise noted this "silly view":

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces
seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the
one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the
sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of
civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of
Opelika 1942

Correct. Justice Reed thought the state should be permitted
to stifle religious freedom by charging for the privilege
of exercising it. This ruling was soon to be overturned,
along with ten other cases where similar supression of
religious practice had been permitted.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The First Amendment: A question of limits; 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments	10 Feb 2006 09:39:31 AM

On 9 Feb 2006 19:19:46 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

a) Adverse rulings are not "bogus" simply because they
don't coincide with your silly views

My "silly views" are the reasonable interpretation of the 1st, 10th
Amendments. Justice Reed had likewise noted this "silly view":

They are NOT "reasonable", Freddie
NO ONE, except a handful of dumb bastards who push the
"states rights" concept accept any of the nonsense.

b) The matter of church/state separation is a settled
matter.

Wrong!

You don't want people to know that Article 5 of the Constution shows
that it is the people, not your "glorious," anti-religious expression
USSC Justices, who call the shots in the United States of America.

The "people" do not elect the USSC judges.
THose judges are the ONLY entity given the right to
intepret what the constitution means.

c) "States rights" dealing with supremacy is settled
law. That's why the rulings handed down arent' going
your way.

Your beliefs are bogus.

THey have no validity.

Article 5

See above

Your silly "reading" of constitutional construct is
childish

I'm simply applying basic reading skills and common sense to what is
written in the Constitution.

It's not a valid argument. It has no legal basis.
State Government cannot do what the Federal
Constitution says is a RIGHT of ALL people----to be
free from government associated religion.
You're denying settled law.

"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution,

Which is the exact cite that proves States do not have
a right to do what the federal constitution disallows.
Thanks.

It's almost pathetic to hear you say that over and over
when it doesn't rise to even a level of stupdity

Ah, your trademark emotional rebuttal.

Given as a truthful response to your nonsense
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Religion off limits, thanks to extremists
Judge Upholds Prayer Limits in Ind. State House
Such A Nice School, Just Outside Baltimore City Limits
Leftist Judge Limits Mom's Religious Freedom
Foster parents' fitness in question: 2-year-old went missing fromfoster care for four months & 11-year-old torture victim and a woman's bodyburied in the backyard..
Why is the question of the gas chambers important?
Budget Question
education in america: question

Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings
Question about Degree
Question concerning link addition UPDATE
Question for the day: What do George Bush's lies teach our children
Test your knowledge . Question for the day.
=?iso-8859-1?q?Good_morning_or_good_evening_depending_upon_your_location._I_want_to_ask_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_life._Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity_depends_upon_your_answer._The_question_is:_Are_you_saved=3F_It_is_not_a_question
Question on Dr. Miklos Nyiszli

Topics

Bible

Abortion

Atheism

Depression

Physics

Education