| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2006 08:41:39 AM |
| Object: |
What is wrong with this? |
http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/commandments/mccreary/conservativelegaldefensefund.pdf
[excerpts]
No. 03-1693
IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
________________
MCCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.,
Respondent.
________________
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit
________________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CONSERVATIVE LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND, JOYCE MEYER MINISTRIES, COMMITTEE TO
PROTECT THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, LINCOLN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION, AMERICAN HERITAGE PARTY, PUBLIC ADVOCATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
RADIO LIBERTY, AND SPIRITUAL COUNTERFEITS PROJECT, INC. IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS
________________
HERBERT W. TITUS*
Attorneys for Amici Curiae WILLIAM J. OLSON
*Counsel of Record WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.
8180 Greensboro Drive
December 8, 2004 Suite 1070
McLean, VA 22102-3860
(703) 356-5070
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. “THIS CONSTITUTION ... SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND” . . . . . . . . .. 4
A. JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRES TEXTUAL FIDELITY . . 4
B. JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRES FIDELITY TO THE
ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. STARE DECISIS REQUIRES CONFORMITY TO THE
MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL
TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO
THE STATES . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE DOES NOT INCORPORATE ANY OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. NO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE OR
IMMUNITY HAS BEEN ABRIDGED IN THIS CASE . . . 23
ii
III. BY OATH BEFORE GOD, THIS COURT IS OBLIGED TO
CONFORM ITS WILL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT . . 27
CONCLUSION . . . . . . 30
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
THE HOLY BIBLE
Leviticus 19:15 . . . . . . 28
Deuteronomy 1:16-17 . 28
Deuteronomy 16:20 . . . 28
1 Samuel 10:24-25 . . . 28
2 Chronicles 19:8-10 . . . . . 28
Psalms 106:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Isaiah 33:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Romans 13:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . 28
U.S. CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2 . . . 26
Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 3 . . . 26
Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 . . 26
Article III, Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Article IV, Section 2 . . . 11, 26
Article V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Amendment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, passim
Amendment IV . . . . . 10
Amendment V . . . . . . . . . 10, passim
Amendment VI . . . . . . . . 10
Amendment VIII . . . . . . 10
Amendment X . . . . . 3, 10
Amendment XIII . . . . . . 10
Amendment XIV . . . . . . . 2, passim
Amendment XV . . . . . 10
FEDERAL STATUTES
28 U.S.C. Section 453 . . . . 4, 28
STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Constitution of Maryland (Nov. 3, 1776) . . . . . . . . 21
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
The amici curiae, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Joyce
Meyer Ministries, Committee to Protect the Family Foundation, Lincoln
Institute for Research and Education, American Heritage Party, Public
Advocate of the United States, Radio Liberty, and Spiritual Counterfeits
Project, Inc., are a coalition of nonprofit organizations, and a media
organization, sharing a common interest in the proper construction of the
Constitution and laws of the United States.1 Each of the amici is
tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), section 501(c)(4), or section 527 of
the Internal Revenue Code, except for Radio Liberty, an independent media
organization. Each of the amici is involved in informing and educating the
public on important issues of national concern, including questions related
to the original intent of the Founders and the correct interpretation of
the United States Constitution, and/or supporting organizations or causes
with such educational goals. The First and Fourteenth Amendment issues
presented in this case have a direct impact the right of organizations to
express their views on religious, educational, social, and political
issues, and are of great interest to these amici. In the past, most of the
amici have filed amicus curiae briefs in other federal litigation,
including matters before this Court. These amici seek to provide this Court
with a perspective that would not otherwise be presented.2
vii
C. Fairman, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of
Rights?,” 2 Stan. L. Rev. 5 (1949) . . . 16
M. Glendon and R. Yanes, “Structural Free Exercise,” 90 Mich. L. Rev. 477
(1991) . . . . 18
P. Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Harvard Press: 2002) . .22
P. Johnson, A History of the American People, (HarperCollins: 1997) . . .3
J. Kent, I Commentaries on American Law (O. Halsted,
New York: 1826) . . 9
W. Lietzau, “Rediscovering the Establishment Clause: Federalism and the
Rollback of Incorporation,” 39 DePaul L. Rev. 1191 (1990) . . . . . 3
Magna Charta of 1215 . . . . . 15
M. McConnell, “Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I:
Establishment of Religion,”44 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 2105 (2003) . . 21
E. Meese, “Perspective on the Authoritativeness of Supreme Court Decisions:
The Law of the Constitution,” 61 Tul. L. Rev. 979 (1987) . . . . 8
Note, “Rethinking the Incorporation of the Establishment Clause: A
Federalist View,” 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1700 (1992) . .. . 3, 27
Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties (ABA Found: 1972) . . .4, 15, 21
C. Rice, “The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation,” The Bill
of Rights (E. Hickock, Jr., ed., Univ. Press of Va.: 1991) . . . . 2
C. Stern, “The Common Law and the Religious
Foundations of the Rule of Law Before Casey,”
38 U.S.F.L. Rev. 499 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
L. Tribe, I American Constitutional Law (3d ed. 2000) . . 27
G. Washington, Farewell Address (1799) . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
E. White, “Reflections on the Role of the Supreme Court: the Contemporary
Debate and the ‘Lessons’ of History,” 83 Judicature 162 (1979) . .. 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
This Court has not entertained any serious challenge to that doctrine since
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), but, if a constitutional doctrine
proves to be erroneous, its longevity is no reason to keep it. See C. Rice,
“The Bill of Rights and the Doctrine of Incorporation,” The Bill of Rights
11 (E. Hickok, Jr., ed., Univ. Press of Va.: 1991). Each justice of this
Court has a continuing, sworn obligation to ensure that the Court’s
doctrines are consistent with the text of the Constitution. A line of
judicial precedents, no matter how long unbroken, must never “close” the
Constitution to reinspection, to ensure conformity to its text. See Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803).
Moreover, stare decisis is no bar to repudiation of this Court’s
Establishment separationist doctrine, even though embedded in a line of
precedents stretching back for 59 years. Indeed, this Court’s decisions,
which have transmuted the original historical purpose of the Establishment
Clause as a
[end of excerpt]
.
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 09:01:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 09:34:25 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>
:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|> Process Clause.
:|
:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
for the first time they are actually making headway.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|>
:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|> Process Clause.
:|
:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
for the first time they are actually making headway.
What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
18 Jan 2006 01:25:34 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|>>:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|>>:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|>>:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|>>:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|>>:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|>>:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|>>:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|>>:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|>>:|> Process Clause.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|>>:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|>>:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
:|> movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
:|>
:|>
:|> The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
:|> for the first time they are actually making headway.
:|
:|What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
January 2006
Editorials
Why The U.S. Senate Should Not Confirm Court Nominee Alito
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7756&abbr=cs_
[excerpt]
In a case last year, O’Connor wrote, “At a time when we see around the
world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by
government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for
constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while
allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would
renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a
difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well
for one that has served others so poorly?”
Why indeed? Our fear is that if Alito is confirmed, he will join the
Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas axis that is hostile to church-state
separation. By pulling in Anthony Kennedy, whose church-state views are at
best erratic, and new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a man personally
vetted by the Religious Right, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will have an
operational majority to begin tearing down the church-state wall on some
key issues.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
18 Jan 2006 02:26:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|>>:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court's test
:|>>:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|>>:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|>>:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|>>:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|>>:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|>>:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|>>:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
:|>>:|> Process Clause.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|>>:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|>>:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
:|> movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
:|>
:|> The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
:|> for the first time they are actually making headway.
:|
:|What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
January 2006
Editorials
Why The U.S. Senate Should Not Confirm Court Nominee Alito
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7756&abbr=cs_
[excerpt]
In a case last year, O'Connor wrote, "At a time when we see around the
world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by
government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for
constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while
allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would
renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a
difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well
for one that has served others so poorly?"
Why indeed? Our fear is that if Alito is confirmed, he will join the
Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas axis that is hostile to church-state
separation. By pulling in Anthony Kennedy, whose church-state views are at
best erratic, and new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a man personally
vetted by the Religious Right, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will have an
operational majority to begin tearing down the church-state wall on some
key issues.
I agree that the church-state boundary will likely be lowered with
Alito replacing O'Connor. But, that will be done by weakening Lemon -
not by reversing Everson.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
18 Jan 2006 04:50:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|>>:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court's test
:|>>:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|>>:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|>>:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|>>:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|>>:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|>>:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|>>:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
:|>>:|> Process Clause.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|>>:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|>>:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
:|> movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
:|>
:|> The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
:|> for the first time they are actually making headway.
:|
:|What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
January 2006
Editorials
Why The U.S. Senate Should Not Confirm Court Nominee Alito
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7756&abbr=cs_
[excerpt]
In a case last year, O'Connor wrote, "At a time when we see around the
world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by
government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for
constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while
allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would
renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a
difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well
for one that has served others so poorly?"
Why indeed? Our fear is that if Alito is confirmed, he will join the
Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas axis that is hostile to church-state
separation. By pulling in Anthony Kennedy, whose church-state views are at
best erratic, and new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a man personally
vetted by the Religious Right, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will have an
operational majority to begin tearing down the church-state wall on some
key issues.
I agree that the church-state boundary will likely be lowered with
Alito replacing O'Connor. But, that will be done by weakening Lemon -
not by reversing Everson.
Josh Rosenbluth
I would not be surprized if Lemon were not just weakened but replaced by
a more workable, less arbitrary test.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
15 Jan 2006 12:17:54 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|>>:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|>>:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|>>:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|>>:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|>>:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|>>:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|>>:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|>>:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|>>:|> Process Clause.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|>>:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|>>:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
:|> movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
:|>
:|>
:|> The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
:|> for the first time they are actually making headway.
:|
:|What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
You can guarantee that at no time in the next, oh say 20 years with the
current crop and with additions that teflon baby Bush might get in there
there won't be others who won't side with Thomas?
You can guarantee that Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, and the new guy doesn't
share Thomas's views on this and that none of therm would side with him
under any circumstances.
You don't need to bother to answer, the answer is no you cannot.
a saying with lots of truth, absolutes seldom are
Your comment is expressing pretty much an absolute:
:|>>there is no chance of it being |adopted
Let me share this with you and remind you, you never did
answer the question which was originally asked
To expect the Supreme Court to turn back the clock by scrapping the
entire incorporation doctrine is so unrealistic as not to warrant
consideration. Numerous reactionaries, including former attorney general
Edwin Meese and Professors James McClellan, Robert Cord, Charles Rice, and
Daniel Dreisbach, indulge their emotions when denouncing the Court for six
decades of decisions based on a doctrine that has "shaky" foundations or
for pursuing its "revolutionary course" in making the First Amendment
applicable to the states. Poor historians that they are, the
nonpreferentialists think that the incorporation doctrine originated in
cases beginning with Gitlow v. New York2 in 1925 and that the Court
"arbitrarily" assumed that religious liberty and freedom from
establishments of religion came within the meaning of the "liberty" of the
Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.3
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First
Amendment, Second Edition, Revised, by Leonard Levy, University of North
Carolina Press, (1994) p.226-27)
Leonard W Levy who is no slouch when it comes to Constitutional Law and
history could have just as easily written in 1994 (I think he actually
wrote that earlier since this version is a revised and updated version of a
earlier book of his)
To expect the Supreme Court to turn back the clock by having USSC Justices
calling for the scrapping the incorporation doctrine with regards to the
Establishment Clause is so unrealistic as not to warrant
consideration
Ten years ago the thought of any USSC Justice to not only mention it but to
begin a campaign to have it happen was so unrealistic as not to warrant
serious consideration.
My how times change, In addition, more and more scholars are jumping on the
bandwagon. You can more and more articles on the internet, not by flakes
but by scholars calling for the same
The foolish position is to say it can't, because it can.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
15 Jan 2006 12:52:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|
:|> Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|>>:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|>>:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|>>:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|>>:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|>>:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|>>:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|>>:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|>>:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|>>:|> Process Clause.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|>>:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|>>:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
:|> movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
:|>
:|>
:|> The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
:|> for the first time they are actually making headway.
:|
:|What headway have they made in convincing SCOTUS other than Thomas?
You can guarantee that at no time in the next, oh say 20 years with the
current crop and with additions that teflon baby Bush might get in there
there won't be others who won't side with Thomas?
You can guarantee that Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, and the new guy doesn't
share Thomas's views on this and that none of therm would side with him
under any circumstances.
I'll give 10-to-1 odds on Scalia or Alito joining Thomas. 25-to-1 on
Roberts. 100-to-1 on Kennedy. 1000-to-1 on The Court issuing a ruling
that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
16 Jan 2006 09:10:18 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:|I'll give 10-to-1 odds on Scalia or Alito joining Thomas. 25-to-1 on
:|Roberts. 100-to-1 on Kennedy. 1000-to-1 on The Court issuing a ruling
:|that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states.
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
In other words you don't really have anything of value beyond you say to
offer.
I have no interest in your you say nor your bets.
it only shows that you head is in the sad to what could happen and of
course the theocrats do applaud your position. They hope more will follow
that position, it makes their work easier
Well, to that I offer the following, with plenty more available if needed
I also noticed you totally sidestepped the Levy info. I had noticed in the
past how you like to claim fred ignores things you provide and question you
ask him.
Guess you do too, huh?
BTW, this is just part of a series of artivcles I am preparing for the con
principle web site
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
They come undeer the following
The increasing assault on church state separation
The Following is an outline of a series of articles that I am going to
create and will be posting here, as well as the Con Principle Web site, in
some threads in UseNet Newsgroups, and the secular Web if they will allow
me to post there as well
I began in ernest two days ago working on the Jaffeee v Wallace
background. I already had some of it done, but it was disorganized and I
had discovered in the past that the Circuit Court opinion in that case did
not appear anywhere on line. I had a photocopy of it here but it wasn't
online anywhere. I spent the last day and half scanning and in some cases
manually typing in that opinion to it can be placed online where a
official URL will exist for it to be used to read and reference said case.
The realization that I had goofed off long enough on this hit me when the
6th Circuit issued its recent Ten Commandments ruling and the judge who
wrote the majority opinion took ut upon himself to advance the cause of the
destruction of the Establishment Clause. Though that particular aspect of
that ruling means nothing legally speaking, since the other two judges of
the three judge panel concurred in the actual holding they did not join the
other judge in his reasoning. Thus making him a lone voice crying in the
wilderness.
However, that lone voice (that section of the opinion) is going to become a
rallying cry for the theocrats. It has already started in the Usenet
Newsgroups and I suspect in other message and chat forums as well.
Thus I am picking up the pace drastically on putting together material to
be posted that fits the following outline.
In other times in the past I had already gathered a good deal of
information regarding the attempts by Clarence Thomas to remove the
Establishment Clause from 14th Amendment incorporation and the
constitutional restoration legislation. Along with some evidence of a
possible Clarence Thomas Dominions connections
Others who wish to help are more than welcome and would be appreciated.
THE OUT;LINE
The increasing assault on church state separation
(1) Increasing propaganda aimed at the dumbed down (Historically and /or
legally speaking poorly educated, informed or ignorant) US citizens
a. activist courts propaganda
b. stepped up attacks via the web, newspapers, network news, books
and other publications against separation of church and state
(2) The restore the constitution legislation
a. Congress has very little say with regards to the US Supreme
Court since that court was established by the Constitution.
b. However, Congress has a good deal more power over lower federal
courts including the power to abolish them.
c. prohibiting lower federal courts from hearing and deciding
cases on such things as religion could make such cases very hard r
from ever reaching the USSC thus pretty much indirectly "prohibiting" them
from hearing any such cases as well. Prior to Flast v Cohen there were
very few cases gettign into federal courts challenging public funds going
to private religious schools.
(3) US Supreme Court - Clarence thomas
a. roots found in the Fed District court ruling in Jaffree v
Wallace, 1983.
b. Courts and .judges such as the lone judge found on the 6th.
Circuit. More and more of these are going to be turning up as a result of
the Reagan. Bush, Bush appointees
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
A three judge panel on the 11th Circut Court of Appeals totally trashed
Jaffree v Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (1983),
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/Jafdecsn.htm
Federal District Court Judge Brevard Hand's opinion in
Jaffree v Board of School Com'rs of Mobile Country 554 F.Supp 1104 (1983)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/jafdist.htm
(The above case is in it's entirety Other versons on line (except pay
services such as West Law etc) are all edited, this will be the only
version that anyone can access, free, that is complete)
that said the Establishment Cluase did not apply to the states and that the
US Supreme Court had inproperly applied same agaisnt the States in Everson
v Bd of Ed in 1947.
*******************************************************************************************
The US Supreme Court had this to say about this
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0472_0038_ZO.html
In its lengthy conclusions of law, the District Court reviewed a number of
opinions of this Court interpreting the [p45] Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment, and then embarked on a fresh examination of the question
whether the First Amendment imposes any barrier to the establishment of an
official religion by the State of Alabama. After reviewing at length what
it perceived to be newly discovered historical evidence, the District Court
concluded that
the establishment clause of the first amendment to the United States
Constitution does not prohibit the state from establishing a religion.
[n24]
In a separate opinion, the District Court dismissed appellees' challenge to
the three Alabama statutes because of a failure to state any claim for
which relief could be granted. The court's dismissal of this challenge was
also based on its conclusion that the Establishment Clause did not bar the
States from establishing a religion. [n25] [p46]
The Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases; not surprisingly, it
reversed. The Court of Appeals noted that this Court had considered and had
rejected the historical arguments [p47] that the District Court found
persuasive, and that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of
stare decisis. [n26] . . .
Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning §
16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District Court's
remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no obstacle to
Alabama's establishment of a state religion. Before analyzing the precise
issue that is presented to us, it is nevertheless appropriate to recall how
firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence is the proposition that
the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual
freedoms [p49] protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of
the United States.
As is plain from its text, the First Amendment was adopted to curtail the
power of Congress to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to
worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own
conscience. [n32] Until the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the
Constitution, the First Amendment's restraints on the exercise of federal
power simply did not apply to the States. [n33] But when the Constitution
was amended to prohibit any State from depriving any person of liberty
without due process of law, that Amendment imposed the same substantive
limitations on the States' power to legislate that the First Amendment had
always imposed on the Congress' power. This Court has confirmed and
endorsed this elementary proposition of law time and time again. [n34]
[p50]
Writing for a unanimous Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303
(1940), Justice Roberts explained:
.. . . We hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants,
deprives them of their liberty without due process of law in contravention
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in
that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.
Cantwell, of course, is but one case in which the Court has identified the
individual's freedom of conscience as the central liberty that unifies the
various Clauses in the First Amendment. [n35] Enlarging on this theme, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE recently wrote: [p51]
We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought
protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the
right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See
Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633-634 (1943); id. at 645
(Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize
religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the
concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak
and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the
broader concept of "individual freedom of mind." Id. at 637.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Thus 20 + years ago the very issue that at least U S Supreme Court
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is championing and trying to change was
also shot down by the highest court in this land.
See,
Mitrchell v Helms
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1648.ZS.html
******************************************************************************
http://peoria.k12.il.us/msmith/isu_cohort/eaf548/Simmons-Harris%20v%20Zelman.htm
Although Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgment, she wrote separately
in Mitchell based upon her belief that "the plurality announces a rule of
unprecedented breadth for the evaluation of Establishment Clause challenges
to government school-aid programs." 120 S. Ct. at 2556. Justice O'Connor's
concurring opinion shows disagreement not only with the "expansive scope of
the plurality's rule[,]" but with two specific aspects of its analysis. Id.
First, she found [**34] the plurality's "treatment of neutrality comes
close to assigning that factor singular importance in the future
adjudication of Establishment Clause challenges to government school-aid
programs." Id. Second, she found "the plurality's approval of actual
diversion of government aid to religious indoctrination is in tension with
our precedents and . . . unnecessary to decide the instant case." Id.
**********************************************************************************
MITCHELL V. HELMS AND THE MODERN CULTURAL ASSAULT ON THE SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
Derek H. Davis*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/02_FMS.htm
***************************************************************************************
Zelman v Simmons-Harris
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZC1.html
*********************************************************************
The most far-reaching aspect of Thursday's decision (Zeolman v
Simmons-Harrris ) comes not in the majority opinion, however, but in the
concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas. In what is becoming a
trademark in his jurisprudence, Justice Thomas invited the Court to
reconsider, "as a matter of first principles," the wholesale incorporation
of the Establishment Clause against the states that began, without any
constitutional analysis, in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education.
It is an invitation worthy of the Court's reply.
http://www.claremont.org/writings/precepts/20020703eastman_meese.html
****************************************************************************
Justice Thomas’s concurrence. While he joined the majority opinion,
Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Thomas argued that
the Establishment Clause should be applicable to the States only to a
limited extent, or perhaps not at all. See Zelman, Opinion of Thomas, J.,
concurring, at 3-5. No other Justice agreed with this extremist view that
is contrary to over sixty years of Supreme Court decisions which have
consistently held the Establishment Clause to be fully applicable to the
States. See, e.g., Zelman, Opinion of the Court at 6; Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940).
****************************************************************************
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC2.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Does that stop Thomas, nope it doesn't. He sides with the with the ultra
conservatives, the ultra libertarians, the
Dominions/reconstructionist/ultra right theocrats. (There is evidecne that
he may be affilitated with the Dominions or at the very least does share
portions of their philosophy.
He sides with (to name just a few of the players)
Robert Cord, Separation of Church and State. Historical
Fact and Current Mcdon (1982)
P. McGuigan & R. Rader, A Blueprint for
Judicial Reform (eds. n.d.);
J. McClellan, Joseph Story and the
American Constitution, 118-159 (1873) (Christianity and the Common Law).
McClellan, The Making and the Unmaking of the Establishment Clause, in
Blueprint for a Judicial Reform 295 (P. McGuigan & R Rader eds. n.d.)
(quoting J. Story. IA. Commentaries on the Constitution § 1871 (1833)
Does the 14th Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights, The Original
Understanding. Charles Fairman, 2 Stanford Law Review, 5 (1949)
Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, R.
Berger (1977)
Judge Moore
Alan Keyes.
D. James Kennedy
Pat Robeertson
Jerry Falwell
Professor Michael J. Malbin
Edwin Meese forner Attornty General
and many many many others, past and current.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
TIME DOESN'T MATTER
Rehnquist spent 20+ years working at oveerturning the "No Aid to Religion
aspect of the Everson v Bd of Ed rule of law (the definition of the
Establishment Clause, and finally had his way with Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris. When he began that campaign, her had trouble gettign anyone
to join him, then had trouble geting enough to join him. But he was patient
he was only in his 50s or early 60s, he figured he had time.
These people have time, they aren't going away, they are patient. Things
come to them eventually or at least has over the past 40 years, and that
coming to them has increased in speed over the past 10 years as more and
more of those types get into positions of power in local, state and federal
governent.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long Tongued Nelly at the Ready" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
16 Jan 2006 03:47:50 PM |
|
|
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/HMOS_WeRphucked.html
January 16, 2006
GW Bush's Nursing Home Inspections Miss Violations, Report Says, and
HHS Bush appointed director Mark McClellan does a FEMA negation
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - State inspectors often overlook serious
deficiencies, including life-threatening conditions, in the nation's
nursing homes, Congressional investigators say in a new report.
In the report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability
Office, questioned data used by the Bush administration in arguing that
its policies have fostered "significant improvements" in the nation's
nursing homes.
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/HMOS_WeRphucked.html
Nursing homes must meet federal standards to participate in Medicaid
and Medicare. Homes are inspected by state employees working under
contract to the federal government.
Much of the apparent improvement has resulted from the fact that those
state inspectors "missed serious deficiencies" or understated their
severity, the accountability office said.
The Congressional investigators found pervasive understatement of
"serious deficiencies that cause actual harm or immediate jeopardy to
patients." The harm includes severe weight loss, "multiple falls
resulting in broken bones and other injuries, and serious, avoidable
pressure sores," the report said. The deficiencies included fire safety
violations.
The top Medicare official, Dr. Mark B. McClellan, said that he too was
"concerned about possible understatement or omission of serious
deficiencies" by state inspectors.
Over all, Dr. McClellan said, the quality of nursing home care has
improved in the last five years. But, he said, these gains are in
jeopardy because Congress has not provided enough money and state
budgets for this purpose are "very limited."
Dr. McClellan said the Bush administration wanted to link payment of
nursing homes to the quality of care they provide. He said he expected
to test such a "pay for performance" system this year.
Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people, covers
two-thirds of the nation's 1.6 million nursing home residents.
Together, Medicaid and Medicare spend more than $67 billion a year on
nursing home care.
The study was requested by Senators Charles E. Grassley, Republican of
Iowa, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin. "If state surveyors are
missing serious deficiencies in the quality of care, then the federal
government has not yet achieved the necessary level of improvement in
oversight of the inspection process," said Mr. Grassley, who is
chairman of the Finance Committee.
In its report, the Government Accountability Office made these points:
=B6States often take weeks or months to start investigating reports of
harm to nursing home residents. These reports come from patients and
their relatives and from nursing home employees.
=B6Some useful information on nursing home quality is available at a
federal Web site, but much of the data is inaccurate or unreliable.
=B6The timing of inspections is highly predictable. This "allows homes
to conceal problems if they so desire."
=B6Concerns about cost have delayed the installation of automatic
sprinkler systems in older nursing homes. More than 20 percent of homes
lack such fire protection devices. The industry wants the government to
help pay the installation costs, estimated at $1 billion.
Dr. McClellan said the proportion of nursing homes cited for serious
deficiencies had declined sharply, to 16 percent last year from 29
percent in 1999.
The Government Accountability Office found great variation from state
to state, and it suggested that inspectors were more rigorous in some
states.
From 2003 to 2005, the report said, California cited 6 percent of its
nursing homes for serious violations, while Connecticut cited 54
percent of its homes.
Senator Kohl said, "There are too many inconsistencies in what is
deemed a deficiency from state to state."
The accountability office said that some inspectors were confused about
the meaning of "actual harm." As a result, it said, the same conditions
are sometimes viewed as a violation of federal rules in one state but
not in others.
Texas reported a big decline in serious deficiencies over the last five
years. But one reason, the report said, is that Texas had "a
significant number of inexperienced surveyors" who were hesitant to
cite nursing homes for major violations.
The Bush administration said that, by some measures, the regulation of
nursing homes had improved. For example, it said, inspectors
investigated 47,124 complaints in 2004, reflecting an increase of 45
percent over the number investigated in 1999.
Moreover, Dr. McClellan said, inspectors have paid more attention to
fire safety since 31 people died in nursing home fires in Connecticut
and Tennessee in 2003. Inspectors identified 47,456 fire-safety
violations in 2004, an increase of 20 percent over the previous year.
Federal employees visit about 5 percent of the nation's 17,000 nursing
homes each year to validate the findings of state inspectors. In 28
percent of these visits from 2002 to 2004, the federal agents found
serious problems not detected by state inspectors. This proportion has
increased in recent years, from 22 percent in 2000 to 2001.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 08:33:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|>
:|> SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|> The central question presented in this case is whether this Court's =
test
:|> laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|> thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to=
the
:|> several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has be=
en
:|> roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reas=
on to
:|> reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests=
upon
:|> the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applie=
s to
:|> the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
:|> Process Clause.
:|
:|Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth
Pull your head out of the sand. It isn't only Thomas. It is a growing
movement. If you didn't know this it is time you discovered it.
The entire radical religious right is pushing it, has been for years but
for the first time they are actually making headway.
The original States had the power to legislate religion before the
federal government even existed. When the States established the
federal government and it's Constitution, they reserved the power to
legislate religion uniquely for the States as evidenced by the 10th
Amendment; the 10th Amendment automatically reserved this power for the
States since the 1st Amendment prohibited the power to legislate
religion only to Congress (federal government, aka United States).
The problem is that corrupt Supreme Court Justices mutinied against the
States (again, the SC was established by the States) with a treasonous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
The unconstitutional sleight-of-hand of the above statement is that the
14th Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight
for the States to start bowing down to; the States are the ones who
wrote the 14th Amendment! But the corrupt Cantwell justices not only
twisted the 14th Amendment into an admission of incompentency, thus
totally ignoring the 5th Amendment protections of the people not to be
witnesses against themselves, but the Justices also accepted the 14th
Amendment as an informal surrendering of the 10th Amendment sovereign
powers of the States. Indeed, the Justices didn't have the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment protected powers of the States in the
Cantwell opinion.
Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies the checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments:
"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
But instead of balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibitions of specific powers on
Congress onto the States. The States have the constitutional power
(10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless if atheists,
separationists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the
people to think that such things are unconstitutional.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 11:40:21 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
Some of her recent writings suggest that O'Connor seems not as enamored
of Lemon as she was 20 years ago. Even so, I doubt that she or the court
without her would be willing to abandon Lemon without first finding a
sharper knife.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 12:07:59 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court's test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
Some of her recent writings suggest that O'Connor seems not as enamored
of Lemon as she was 20 years ago. Even so, I doubt that she or the court
without her would be willing to abandon Lemon without first finding a
sharper knife.
Well O'Connor and The Supreme Court have already lost
The Pennsylvania Contigent for good, which is where the original
knife
came from. Since the origiinal case didn't
have anything to do with religion, it to do with
*WHICH Textbooks*, and Course Cirriculum.
Since we're don't teach moron New York & Dems Inc,
Washington. London, and Paris 42st Sex-Change ***** here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Goldberg" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 10:53:34 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
Just Congress.
--
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free."
~P.J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
16 Jan 2006 11:16:28 AM |
|
|
David Goldberg <david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|
:|Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
:|
:|> wrote:
:|> >
:|> > SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
:|> > The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
:|> > laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
:|> > thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
:|> > several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
:|> > roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
:|> > reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
:|> > the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
:|> > the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
:|> > Process Clause.
:|>
:|> Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
:|> adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
:|> replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
:|>
:|> Josh Rosenbluth
:|
:|"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
:|
:|Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
:|about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
:|
:|Just Congress.
Actually if you read the writings of Madison you will see that Congress was
signaled out since it was at the time the most powerful but he makes it
cllear in his writings that govt was ment not just Congress.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/c229fa52b04c6827?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/29eb74396f0b11fb?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/f8af31fc5529ffc4?hl=en&
Indirect connections
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.constitution/msg/077aa216ebaca168?hl=en&
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 10:55:35 AM |
|
|
David Goldberg wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
Just Congress.
Yet of the SCOTUS members, only Thomas concurs with your view.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 10:54:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:53:34 -0800, David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
Forgotten the ninth and fourteenth amendments have you?
Just Congress.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
15 Jan 2006 06:57:43 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:53:34 -0800, David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court's test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
Forgotten the ninth and fourteenth amendments have you?
You're wrong about the 14th Amendment...
The original States had the power to legislate religion before the
federal government even existed. When the States established the
federal government and it's Constitution, they reserved the power to
legislate religion uniquely for the States as evidenced by the 10th
Amendment; the 10th Amendment automatically reserved this power for the
States since the 1st Amendment prohibited the power to legislate
religion only to Congress (federal government, aka United States).
The problem is that corrupt Supreme Court Justices mutinied against the
States (again, the SC was established by the States) with a treasonous
interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the Cantwell opinion:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such
laws." --Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.
The unconstitutional sleight-of-hand of the above statement is that the
14th Amendment did not magically appear in the Constitution overnight
for the States to start bowing down to; the States are the ones who
wrote the 14th Amendment! But the corrupt Cantwell justices not only
twisted the 14th Amendment into an admission of incompentency, thus
totally ignoring the 5th Amendment protections of the people not to be
witnesses against themselves, but the Justices also accepted the 14th
Amendment as an informal surrendering of the 10th Amendment sovereign
powers of the States. Indeed, the Justices didn't have the guts to
mention the 10th Amendment protected powers of the States in the
Cantwell opinion.
Fortunately, Justice Reed wrote a rare note about the 10th Amendment in
the Opelika opinion, a note which unifies the checks and balances
between the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments:
"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
But instead of balancing the 10th protected sovereign powers of the
States with 14th protected personal federal rights as they should,
corrupt, secular-minded Justices are now using the 14th as an excuse to
unconstitutionally force the 1st A's prohibitions of specific powers on
Congress onto the States. The States have the constitutional power
(10th) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th)
classroom discussions about the pros and cons of evolution, creationism
and irreducible complexity, for example, regardless if atheists,
separationists, secular judges and the liberal media are misleading the
people to think that such things are unconstitutional.
Just Congress.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "2211 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with this? |
14 Jan 2006 02:39:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:53:34 -0800, David Goldberg
<david_asbnll@yahoo.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The central question presented in this case is whether this Court’s test
laid down in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and any variant
thereof, applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the
several states should be overruled. For years, the Lemon test has been
roundly criticized as unworkable3, but that is only a secondary reason to
reject it. Rather, this Court should overrule Lemon because it rests upon
the wholly illegitimate premise that the Establishment Clause applies to
the States through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
Only Thomas buys into that notion - there is no chance of it being
adopted. On the other hand, Lemon could be weakened with the
replacement of O'Connor with Alito.
Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Note it specifically mentions Congress. They did that for a reason. Nothing
about judges. Nothing about states. Nothing about local schools.
Going by that logic, only Congress is barred from abridging freedom of
speech or right of assembly, thus meaning that any state or local
government can -- making those two basic rights utterly moot.
Just Congress.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
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)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
