Again, reading their rulings (and I have on occasion) doesn't impress me when they make a decision that is clearly in violation of the Constitution. They interpret WRONG on many occasions and it is politically motivated whether it be because of pure politics or the motivations of the current times, or changing times as many like to call it. I can read their thought processes step by step and see exactly where they make their mistakes. Their justifications after that are meaningless.
You claim that actions taken by Presidents in the past are unconstitutional. The Congress and or the President can go so far as declaring martial law in times of emergency. Wartime acts in recent times have not gone that far and there is no indication they will go that far now.
Yes affirmative action is unconstitutional, you aren't going to change my position on this so it's a dead issue. The ruling is incorrect and politically motivated. ANY decision based on something such as race, sex or ethnicity whether it be restricted or not violates the Constitution. This is a prime example of the "thought processes" leading to a clear case of ignoring what is in the Constitution for political expediency.
Amendment XIV 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.
Where in the above amendment does it make allowances for sex, race or ethnicity? Any decision made based on affirmative action does not afford "equal protection" to both parties.
You make my point in saying the founders disobeyed the Constitution. They were the ones that wrote it, they were the ones that knew what it meant. NOT Supreme Court Justices in the 1960' s. Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it.
Our religious freedoms are constantly being harrassed, especially if they are Christian. Religion does not end when entering government, to say it does, is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion. They haven't but the Judicial branch has "created" laws which in effect have, even though that is not within thier power.
I am not confused at all. I can read the Constitution and interpret it without the need of having politically motivated justices telling me what it means. Like I said earlier, it isn't that difficult of a document. I do not try to apply today's values to it because those values destroy the intent. The Constitution as written is a very strong document, changing it without going through the amendment process is what weakens it.
The provisions in the Patriot Act are allowed for in the Constitution. That is why I don't have a problem with it. Wartime and other emergencys have allowances. If we were not at war or in an emergency, and they continued with the provisions, then I might have a problem with it. I would not support it being permanent.
It'a apparent we aren't going to agree on this. You want to rewrite the Constitutional values through judicial precedent as the times change. I want no changes unless they are done through the amendment process and want the Constitution interpreted as intended when written.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A person that questions his own sanity is, of course, sane, for incessant questioning is the process of healthy thinking. Absolute self assurance is not a sign of rationality.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The provisions in the Patriot Act are allowed for in the Constitution. That is why I don't have a problem with it. Wartime and other emergencys have allowances. If we were not at war or in an emergency, and they continued with the provisions, then I might have a problem with it. I would not support it being permanent.
the current situation is that the White House has demanded a permannet extension of the majority of the Patriot Act, and that Frist, leading the Senate, has said there will be no vote for a simple extension...they are demanding permanence, or nothing...
why can't they work on something more reasonable?
it has serious constitutional flaws starting with the first ammendment and going on from there, and no-one argues that, only that we need it to defend ourselves ....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to start providing exampls, as I have done, Aragorn. You're making a lot of baseless statements that you're not backing up.
The judicial branch, when ruling on cases, does not look to alter the Constitution. In fact, they do not. They rule on cases as being constitutional, or unconstitutional. In doing so, they may find certain laws or acts unconstitutional and reverse them. They interpret the constitution, not alter it.
You keep coming back by saying things such as, "Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it."
If you somehow have discovered the secret to time travel and can go ask them exactly what they meant, then go right ahead.
No the Constitution is not a simple document. That is why there are always new debates and issues coming up. Universities have classes devoted solely to the topic of it. I am sure many people have written thesis' on it.
Who do we have to interpret the Constitution today? The Supreme Court. Yes the founding fathers knew what they meant. In their time it may have been easy. Today it is now. You still haven't answered my question about when it is constitutional/legal for a town to restrict a religion from performing animal sacrafices. The constitution does not provide the answer. The supreme court must then interpret the rules of the constitution to determine if the laws regulating/prohibiting animal sacrafice are constitutional.
You say that affirmative action is unconstitutional because it takes away our right of equal protection. Then you say the Patriot Act is alright even though it takes away certain civil rights. You justify it by saying it is necessary during times of war to preserve security and that the government has done this in the past. This is called a "compelling state interest." The government is allowed to restrict our freedoms, such as how they restrict the use of peyote by native american relgions as determined in the Oregon v. Smith case, so long as their is a significant compelling state interest.
Here is the compelling interest for affirmative action as far as MSN Encarta says,
In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled on these two cases. In Grutter v. Bollinger the Court found that the law school’s affirmative action program was constitutional, reaffirming its finding in the Bakke decision that the state has a compelling interest in assuring racial diversity. In the 5 to 4 majority decision Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”
However, in a separate decision, the Court rejected the affirmative action program used in the university’s undergraduate program, which was challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger. The undergraduate program used a point system in deciding how to weigh applicants, with minority applicants receiving a large number of points. The Court ruled that this method was too “mechanistic” and amounted to a quota system. The law school program, the Court said, was permissible because it evaluated each applicant individually and used race as one of many factors in deciding whom to admit.
Civil rights organizations hailed the decision because it clearly reaffirmed the value of affirmative action programs, even though it did not overturn state laws that prohibit affirmative action, such as those in California and Washington. Opponents of affirmative action vowed to continue fighting and noted the Court’s opinion that “enshrining a permanent justification of racial preferences would offend [the] equal protection principle” of the Constitution. “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” O’Connor wrote. (See the Sidebar “Grutter v. Bollinger.”)
By the time the Court heard the Grutter case, affirmative action had become an accepted practice throughout American society. Amicus (friend of the court) briefs from the heads of major corporations and from retired military officers argued that affirmative action was essential to produce qualified corporate managers and military leaders, and to encourage industrial innovation. These amicus briefs, and Justice O’Connor’s references to them in her opinion, suggest that affirmative action has become a key tool not only to achieve greater equality in the nation, but also to help manage sustained economic growth and secure the national defense.
Are you going to tell me that is not a compelling state interest?
You're going to have to explain what you mean by this:
"You make my point in saying the founders disobeyed the Constitution. They were the ones that wrote it, they were the ones that knew what it meant. NOT Supreme Court Justices in the 1960' s. Those Justices have lost touch with the meaning of the Constitution. That is why we need to use the founders intents, not todays intents when interpreting the Constitution. THEY knew what they wrote and intended, they wrote it."
Where is your point if the people that wrote the constitution disobeyed it themselves just as you say Supreme Court justices are doing? What you say doesn't make sense. You're basically saying that the Supreme Court is wrong because they're misinterpreting the constitution and the founding fathers who wrote the constitution are better even though they also misinterpreted the constitution. That doesn't make sense.
AGAIN, provide examples of how our religious freedoms are being harassed. If you read the history and evolution of the test which is used to determine whether a law is constitutional in terms of restricting religious freedoms, you'll find that most laws that are written today that do possibly infringe our religious freedoms do not stand against this test and thus, overruled.
You'll have to explain how Christian relgious freedoms especially are being attacked.
You'll also have to explain your statement that religion does not end when entering government. Do you mean when a person enters office? That is blatantly wrong if thats what you mean. Anyone in office is still allowed to freely practice their religion just as if they were out of office. They can not use religion to motivate their decisions or how they write bills/laws. For example, Christians in office may not write a law outlawing homosexuality by saying god meant for it to be a man and a woman.
I find it hard to believe that by reading the constitution you know everything about it. "A man who thinks he know's everything, knows nothing at all." If everything was so clear cut then why are all these huge debates over homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, etc.. The rights we have regarding those rights are not clearly written into the constitution.
Please provide examples, links, anything besides making baseless comments when you reply.
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have provided examples, the Constitution of the United States. Not sure what else is needed here.
The judicial branch may not look to alter the Constitution but they do with many of their rulings. This is because their rulings create precidence which then goes down to all the lower courts and is accepted as "law" when in fact it is not law.
The Constitution IS A SIMPLE DOCUMENT. If something needs interpreting to be allowed to be Constitutional such as affirmative action, it probably isn't Constitutional as affirmative action is not.
The secret to time travel is in our history. There are many documents written concerning the Constitution by those that wrote it. There are many documents written by those that followed shortly thereafter as there are many documents written by those in power today. The early documents are going to be closer in meaning to the Constitution than later interpretations.
I didn't answer your question about animal sacrifice because that is open to interpretation and subject to the various laws of the states. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and would be hard pressed for an example of the Constitution prohibiting it.
Again, you can post every affirmative action case you want, it remains unconstitutional. The Constitution is VERY clear, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" There is NOTHING to interpret there. It is quite clear. You cannot give one person preferential treatment over another because of race, that introduces unequal protection. There is no compeling state interest for affirmative action. No one is in danger from a lack of affirmative action. There is a big difference between being threatened by bullets and being threatened with having to go somewhere else for employment or education. If someone feels discriminated against, there are discrimination laws which correct this and are Constitutional.
My point is that the people who wrote the Contitution knew what they wanted in it, what it meant and what was Constitutional and not Constitutional. When they funded religious schools, they KNEW it wasn't un-Constitutional because there never was a seperation of church and state. They could pass no laws establishing a religion, that does not mean they had to ignore religion. THEY KNEW. The further you get away from the original, the greater the chance of losing the meaning. Many people, including justices have lost the meaning and applied today's values to the Constitution. That is a mistake because todays values were unknown to the framers. They made allowance for change through the amendment process. Not judicial activism.
What YOU say doesn't make sense. That the people that wrote the Constitution then turned around and disobeyed it.
For example: You must create a program of some sort for your business and you create the rules or guideline for that program. You then print out these guidelines and give them to your co-workers. The co-workers approve, ask a few questions and then implement the program. It is successfull and another company gets wind of it and decides to implement it at their business as well. They don't ask you any questions, in fact the only communication is between your boss and their boss. Who knows better on what the intent of your program is, you, your boss, their boss or the employees of the second company. If a problem comes up that requires a decision on whether rule 3 applies, who best knows that? Religious freedoms being harrassed:
Seperation of church and state - doesn't exist. Any ruling made on that basis and there are many is harrasment.
You cannot make any law which restricts the free practice of religion. That includes restricting religious displays on public property. One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from controlling people in public places. You can stand on the street corner and denounce the President of the United States but you can't erect a manger scene at Christmas?
How Christians in particular are harrassed is obvious if you pay attention to the news. Schools in California recently held classes where students were given specific roles in Islamic history to learn Islam. I have no problem with that, it is allowed. But if the same were done with Christian roles, it would not be allowed and has not been allowed in the past. The arguement is that Christianity is the dominent religion so it in particular either does not need to be taught or should not be taught.
I don't claim to know everything about the Constitution. I do know when some things clearly are not there.
Baseless comments? Not really, they are simply comments which I didn't consider it necessary to dig up supporting information on. This is after all a casual discussion not a debate which has great implications on the actual Constitution. If you require more information, you can easily run a google search and get it. During this entire discussion I have tended to relie on what is in the Constitution of the United States. That is what I have been discussing. You are trying to show how interpretation changes that. Your examples only show how judicial activism has corrupted the meaning of the Constitution. The comments concerning how the founders are going to know what the Constitution meant more accurately than people today is a lesson learned in kindergarden. I'm sure you're familier with the teacher getting everyone in a circle and giveing the first a message and each then passes the message to the next student until the last person relates the message to all and it is generally not even close to the original.
Jefferson is often used as an example of seperation of church and state by its advocates. Here is an interesting article on why this is an incorrect assumption:
posted
"The Constitution IS A SIMPLE DOCUMENT. If something needs interpreting to be allowed to be Constitutional such as affirmative action, it probably isn't Constitutional as affirmative action is not."
There is no logic to that statement. It is not a valid statement. Something needing interpreting does not lead to it being unconstitutional.
You haven't commented on some important things I've said that reveal the weak points in your arguement.
You say that we're allowed to have rights stripped of us during war time because of the governments compelling interests to secure the nation yet when a huge compelling interest of securing an equal, stable future, you won't give up your rights. The constitution is very clear on the rights the government takes away from us.
"There is a big difference between being threatened by bullets and being threatened with having to go somewhere else for employment or education. If someone feels discriminated against, there are discrimination laws which correct this and are Constitutional."
You are oblivious to the inequalities minorities face in this nation. The country needs to level the playing field. I already provided the text showing that the government feels that equalizing opportunities for everyone is crucial to the future of the nation. Even after affirmative action, many of the university populations have less than 10% minorities.
You apparently don't realize how little help minorities get in this country. Tax breaks go to the wealthy while children are growing up in inadequate educational and living environments. Who's to blame for that? Not the judicial branch that's for sure. Do I even have to mention the Katrina response?
This is besides the point that you think affirmative action is always preferential treatment. It is not. It simply allows schools to be able to evaluate applicants on their race to pursue a diverse student body that will expand their horizons by providing new aspects on life. It is just like traveling to Europe and traveling from country to country. The experience is overwhelming and enlightening with respect to how diverse people can be and what each culture brings to the table. People need to learn about each other in order to live together. If you want to promote inequality and perpetuating the seperating of races in the US then you're on the right track.
I do not understand how you say the Constitution is a "SIMPLE DOCUMENT" when you can't even understand the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
You said, "When they funded religious schools, they KNEW it wasn't un-Constitutional because there never was a seperation of church and state. They could pass no laws establishing a religion, that does not mean they had to ignore religion."
Here is the exact wording of the free exercise clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Where in "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," does it say that government funding of a religion is not actually respecting it? There was always a seperation of church and state. Not only can a government not establish an official religion, it CAN NOT RESPECT IT. If the government were to provide funding to every religion that arises it would lead to excessive government entanglement with religion and severely violate the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment. Therefore, I do in fact make sense in what I say and you are the one not making sense, again.
"Seperation of church and state - doesn't exist. Any ruling made on that basis and there are many is harrasment." This is what I mean by a baseless comment. Provide the cases so I can read them.
"I didn't answer your question about animal sacrifice because that is open to interpretation and subject to the various laws of the states. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and would be hard pressed for an example of the Constitution prohibiting it."
Actually you're wrong here too. Any state is allowed to prohibit animal sacrafice, or other acts that are prohibited under generally applicable law, so long as the state has a compelling interest. What this means is that the timeframe and situation of enacting the law is scrutinized. In the case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the city heard of the practices and soon outlawed the practice of animal sacrafice. When analyzed in court it was found that the compelling interest of the city was non-existant and that the law had been written in direct response to the new religion. If the law had been written 5 years before the religion came to the city, then most likely they could constitutionally prohibit animal sacrafice. What's also important about this example is it supports my claim that the Supreme Court is also supporting our religious freedoms rather than attacking them as you say they are.
Under the constitution, simply written, the church would not have been able to practice animal sacrafice. The constitution would have recognized only a generally applicable law regardless of when the law was enacted or for what reason. Without the Supreme Court, that church would have lost an important religious freedom. I'm sure the founding fathers knew what they meant by religious freedoms in this instance though.
You really need to read up on the current state at which cases are analyzed in religious freedoms case. Fact is that the tests used by the Supreme Court today make it extremely difficult for any law that has the slightest hint of infringing on our religious freedoms are almost always shot down.
"You cannot make any law which restricts the free practice of religion. That includes restricting religious displays on public property. One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from controlling people in public places. You can stand on the street corner and denounce the President of the United States but you can't erect a manger scene at Christmas?"
This statement of yours has absolutely NO bearing on the arguement at hand. Yes you can stand on a street corner and denounce the president. Yes you can stand on a street corner and erect a manger scene. I will say, that perhaps permits are required to construct a display, rally, etc.; just as how a parade needs to be granted permission or how a rally, such as Million Man Marches or KKK marches need permits. To simplify what I'm saying. You can go to a street corner and denounce the president. You can also go to the street corner and read the bible outloud.
Where you may be confused is that any public institution can not do the same. Public administrations are part of our government system and thus fall under the same rules. They can not respect the establishment of any religion. You, as an individual, have the right to speak and demonstrate as you please; again so long as you're following city codes with permits for holding demonstrations or displays. Now, what was the point of that statement?
"How Christians in particular are harrassed is obvious if you pay attention to the news. Schools in California recently held classes where students were given specific roles in Islamic history to learn Islam. I have no problem with that, it is allowed. But if the same were done with Christian roles, it would not be allowed and has not been allowed in the past. The arguement is that Christianity is the dominent religion so it in particular either does not need to be taught or should not be taught."
First, this is a baseless comment. You just gave a "but if" statement. This has not happened and the outcome is not certain. You have no proof that, that is what would happen. The schools are also teaching the history and not the religion. There is a difference. In fact schools do teach the history of Christianity in public schools. Such topics include things such as, spreading the religion to indians during our nations growth (ever heard of a mission?), protestant reformation, and especially about christianity during the middle and medival ages as it spread across Europe. These topics are obviously discussed in history classes. In this respect, I'd say schools spend a considerable amount of time on Christianity.
I just gave a situation where the history of Christianity is taught. It is still being taught. Christianity is not being targeted or harassed by the government.
I don't know why you brought up the Jefferson comment. I never mentioned I thought he was an advocate of separation of church and state.
You keep trying to press the point that all we have to do is go back to what the founding fathers originally wrote and all will be settled. There is no way to do this, even with reading their numorous writings. The reason is because the problem with a religious freedoms is that sometimes they interfere with our government operations, such as the animal sacrafice or certain drug use. How does the constitution explain what to do in these situations? Did the founding fathers ever touch on the subject of mandating education to teenagers and how it might interfere with the Amish belief that a higher education corrupts the values in the Amish religion of their children?
How about our freedom of speech when it comes to individuals protesting and calling for a revolt and violent overthrow of the government? In what situations is this allowed and when is it not? Does the constitution provide the answer to this? There are certain situations where it is permissable. Can you tell me what they are?
If a state provides college scholarships for secular instruction, does the First Amendment's free exercise clause require a state to fund religious instruction?
If someone is denied unemployement compensation because they are offered work on Saturday yet refuse it because it is their religions Sabbath day, are her religious freedoms being unconstitutionally infringed upon?
Where in the Constitution are the answers? You can not say the Constitution is a "simple document." It has hidden meanings everywhere that need to be exposed.
I do not believe that you have read many, if any, Supreme Court rulings. They do in fact research the history of the United States and look at the original intent of the constitution quite frequently. If something is not quite clear from the original intent, such as the above questions, then they begin to analyze the constitution in other terms. Even then, they use precedent set by cases sometimes dating earlier than 1870. I doubt very few cases earlier than that can really relate to current cases so much that they would be used.
Is there anything I didn't touch on?
Affirmative action is constitutional, although maybe not widely accepted. This is similar to how we're allowed the right to say thing's like how one race is inferior to another. Although it is our right, it's not really something people want others doing.
I've proved that you are indeed providing baseless comments. When I proved the constitution can not answer the questions of today it makes you using the constitution as an example null and void.
Religion is not being attacked. Christianity is not being harassed. The Supreme Court is actually supporting our religious freedoms. Perhaps they'll uphold other freedoms by overturning the Patriot Act?
Seperation of church and state does exist.
What else do I need to prove?
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
strider what do you make of Article 6 Clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
you do realise that this makes most of the swearings in to the military and the civil service unconstitutional dontcha?
nobody really cares... that's why swearing to God is still in the oaths...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
As I consider the Constitution to have been written for the people, not so that only the judiciary could "interpret" it, it is your viewpoint that is illogical. If it requires deep interpretation that the common man can not see, it probably is un-Constitutional. As there is no possible way for affirmative action to get around the equal protections clause, it is un-Constitutional.
Where in the Constitution does it say we "level the playing field"? On the contrary, it says we have EQUAL PROTECTIONS. That means one group cannot have preferential treatment over another. Neither does the Constitution deal with one group being better off than another. That's a social issue not a Constitutional issue.
It is becoming clear that it is not I that doesn't understand the Constitution. I do understand the free exercise clause, I do not believe that you do. You claim that the government "can not respect it". The government MUST respect religion. It has no choice. It cannot provide freedom for something that it does not acknowledge or respect. You place the emphasis on the wrong word. Establishment is where the emphasis belongs. The goverment may not pass laws to establish religion. The Constitution itself is a law which respects religion.
I'm not wrong about the animal sacrifices. I even pointed out it is subject to state laws. You lost me where you say the Constitution simply written would prohibit animal sacrifice. It does not.
My statement concerning manger scenes has a very stong bearing to this discussion. When the government tells the people that they cannot erect a manger scene in the town square or the town park or in front of the county courthouse, when all of these are public properties, they are infringing on the peoples religious rights. This is happening all over the United States. There is currently a case in Arizona concerning crosses erected on a memorial for police officers killed in the line of duty. There is another concerning a cross on a hillside in California. There has been a battle in a small PA town called Lititz regarding the erection of a manger scene in the circle in the main square.
You seem to enjoy the word "baseless" and accuse me of making baseless statements. When you do so, YOU are making a baseless statement. The example about the California school is NOT baseless, it did occur and was covered extensively on the Glenn Beck radio program this past summer.
The reason I brought up the Jefferson comment should be obvious to anyone interested in the seperation of church and state issue. He is the one most claimed as being in favor of it. As the writer of the Constitution, he is the one most pointed out to. As this premise is false, and is shown by the article I provided, it not only prempts that common misconception but supports my position that the framers did not intend for there to be a seperation of church and state.
The founding fathers did not anticipate all the changes which would occur over time, no one could. What they did do is write a document that would survive the test of time no matter what changes occured. They also developed a system of ammendments which could be used to change the Constitution if the need would be seen in the future. They never intended the Constitution to be "changed" by judicial activism. Several of the founders considered the judiciary to be the weakest link in the new Democracy. It was felt they could possibly weld too much power. That seems to be coming true today. They took great care to establish the balance of powers. The judiciary is not able to create or make law yet today they almost routinely do.
I haven't read many Supreme Court rulings. I read the ones that interest me. There was a recent one where one of the justices used foreign law to make his ruling. I found that to be fascinating.
I think you've proved you like to make the claim of baseless comments, you haven't proven that I've made them. You yourself have been proved to have made them however.
Religion is being attacked, Christianity is being harrassed. These are both factual and this time of year easy to prove. There is always a case somewhere concerning the manger and the ACLU. Then there is also the well documented case of the 10 Commandments on the lawn which the judge was forced to remove.
And lastly, seperation of church and state exists only in the minds of those that misinterpret the Constitution. It clearly did not exist as a concept prior to the 1960's. References to God in government functions, pledges, etc exist in our swearing in ceremonies, the prayer at the opening of every session of Congress, "In God We Trust" on our money. None of this "establishes" religion. It does respect it though.
You don't need to prove anything. You've convinced me of nothing.
Glassman,
That means that you can't use religion to disqualify an individual from serving in public office. The oath is still valid. If the person does not wish to say "God" that can be eliminated. You can't for instance say a Jew may not serve or only Catholics may serve. That is the religious test.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.
not before, and you'll note: it ws during a very SEVERE time in our history, that's usually when all the NUTCASES start getting so loud people will do anything to shut them up
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glassman. I think Some people on here need to Visit D.C. They will be surprised on what they will learn there rather what they think they know now.
Posts: 541 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.
so much for your statement that: And lastly, seperation of church and state exists only in the minds of those that misinterpret the Constitution. It clearly did not exist as a concept prior to the 1960's.
you have been brainwashed, how much money did you give 'em???
the seapration issues got heated up in response to politicians that were in fact FORCING the issue...
and the move toward religion was a response to make ourselves distinct from the "godless commies"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act late Wednesday night, hoping to avoid the expiration of law enforcement powers deemed vital in the war on terror.Approval came on a voice vote, and cleared the way for a final vote in the House.
Several provisions in the current law expire Dec. 31, and President Bush has called repeatedly for new legislation.
The House was scheduled to reconvene Thursday, but senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently.
The Senate vote Wednesday night capped several days of backroom negotiation conducted against the backdrop of presidential attacks on critics of the legislation.
The extension gives critics — who successfully filibustered a House-Senate compromise that would have made most of the law permanent — more time to seek civil liberty safeguards in the law. Democrats and their allies had originally asked for a three-month extension, and the Senate's Republican majority had offered a one-year extension. The final deal split the difference.
"For a lot of reasons, it made the most sense, given that there are significant differences that remain," said GOP Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, one of a small group of Republicans who joined with Senate Democrats to filibuster a House-Senate compromise.
"I think this is a reasonable conclusion," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, added, "Our intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be left wondering, yet again, whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our nation."
The bill's critics gained momentum Wednesday when they released a letter crafted by Sununu and Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., showing they had 52 senators agreeing to support a three-month extension.
"This is the right thing to do for the country," Schumer said after the deal had been announced. "To let the Patriot Act lapse would have been a dereliction of duty."
President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republican congressional leaders have lobbied fiercely to get the House-Senate compromise passed, and issued dire warnings of what would happen if the Patriot Act expires.
Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.
Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers.
Posts: 541 | From: Virginia | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't listen to Falwell. I don't like Falwell, I could care less what Falwell says.
I also never claimed that "In God We Trust" was placed on our money by the founders. I am aware of the history of that and the other references to God in our pledges, etc. They were not considered un-Constitutional when they were accepted, they aren't un-Constitutional now. The Constitution was not changed in regard to religion through any amendment process since they were accepted. Brainwashed? Hardly. Thanks for pointing out the dates of "In God We Trust" appearing proving my point that they existed for a long time prior to the activism of the '60's. Nearly 100 years.
BigBuyer,
Your right, a visit to DC is very inspiring. I make it a point to go there about twice a year.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again? you see right past the real issue tho...
the Motto was:A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.
this is why the issue got more debate, people weren't FIGHTING the constitutionality of these things until the religious overstepped the bounds of the constitution, and quite frankly you are clueless about how constitutional issues work, They were not considered un-Constitutional when they were accepted they were never tested, because people didn't care to have them tested, that is how the system works.... they were never constitutional... and you may not listen to Falwell? but you are spouting the same chit he is..
wah wah wah poor me i'm being persecuted....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't listen to Falwell and he damned sure doesn't listen to reason. With respect to reason, he parallels that old tale about the guy that doesn't mind work.....He can sit right beside it and never even notice, so it doesn't bother him at all.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to take a philosophy class Aragorn. Please provide the logic that if something can not be understood by the common man that it is unconstitutional.
You keep saying that affirmative action doesn't get around the equal protections clause. How is the government stripping of us our rights any more constitutional then? You can not say that it is simply because the government has done it in the past. Every time they have done that, the actions of the government were indeed found to be unconstitutional.
You need an english less as well.
Here is what you said, The government MUST respect religion. It has no choice. It cannot provide freedom for something that it does not acknowledge or respect. You place the emphasis on the wrong word. Establishment is where the emphasis belongs. The goverment may not pass laws to establish religion. The Constitution itself is a law which respects religion.
Here is the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause AGAIN: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This means Congress can not pass a law that respects a religion. establishment OF religion It does NOT say, Congress shall make no law establishing religion...
Do you see the difference? With “establishment of religion” they do also cover the aspect of not “establishing religion” The second they begin to respect an establishment of religion, then they have chosen preference of certain religions over others. Thus, in doing so they have established religion. “Establishment of religion” covers both aspects that they can’t pass laws catering to religion, respecting it, favoring it, inhibiting it, advancing, anything.
It is in the Free exercise clause that government, while not respecting it, is humble to it. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It's not to say that they don't think religion exists. The clause is basically saying we know you're there, but we don't want to/can't get involved.
In fact you are wrong about animal sacrafices still. States may prohibit animal sacrafices so long as they have a compelling interest that also has a secular purpose. What I said was that the constitution may find state laws unconstitutional for those reasons. It is not what the law is specifically written as. It is about when, where, why, and who the laws is written by/for.
I said the constitution would prohibit animal sacrafices if we took the constitutional text literal as you want to. When we do that we wouldn't judge the law against it's compelling interest and purpose. Prohibiting animal sacrafice is a generally applicable law but when we analyze certain states attempts to outlaw it, we see that it has religious purposes. We can not do this. Animal sacrafices should be and are a religious right because we do not just take the Constitutional text literally. We analyze it and determine when certain rights, such as cannibalism, should be prohibited, while practices, such as animal sacrafice, can be allowed.
Your manger scene example is still off base. You say, When the government tells the people that they cannot erect a manger scene in the town square or the town park or in front of the county courthouse, when all of these are public properties, they are infringing on the peoples religious rights. How are they infringing on these peoples rights? Being a public property they have the right to say, No, we can't let you do that here. Are they saying, No you can't do that here nor anywhere else ? No they're not. You're still free to go to your respective church, home, anywhere and practice your religion. In front of a court house is not the only place to put a manger. I also don't see how this is an appropriate place for a manger. Nothing screams jesus christ like a manger on the steps of a court house where criminals are tried and convicted for crimes such as rape, murder, etc.. If you ask me, there is a motive by religious groups to do exactly what you're doing here.
You say those examples are attacking Christianity. Let's play your what if game. What if a Jewish group requested a Hebrew Star displayed on the Court house steps. Do you think they'd get it either?
I do use baseless to describe your statements a lot because most of them are. I give you links, case names, legal doctrine, and you give me nothing but spew. What I called baseless about your California school example dealing with the teaching of Islamic history is that you played the but if game that if Christianity was taught in schools there'd be a huge uproar. You have no proof that there would be. I even proved to you that Christianity and Catholocism is taught in history courses. They get more time than Islam even because the middle ages is always an interesting topic in history classes. Anyways, THAT is how your comment was baseless. Where is your proof that they would strike down the teaching of christianity history?
About your Jefferson comment, I never said I believed Jefferson was a firm believer in separating church and state. Thanks for the link to set it surely straight for me. That does nothing for the arguement though. Even if the original founders did not intend on a separation of church and state, it's there in the first amendment.
The judicial system is not re-writing the constitution. They are only declaring what is constitutional under the terms prescribed by the constitution. It also has to do a lot with how the legislative branch writes their laws. Maybe if they all weren't idiots they'd write iron-clad laws that don't infringe on our rights as citizens. I've already given you plenty of examples to prove that the Supreme Court is actually upholding our rights and protecting us from the other branches of government. Are you going to start listening?
I think you've proved you like to make the claim of baseless comments, you haven't proven that I've made them. You yourself have been proved to have made them however. You're just like a basher for a stock. You're repeating the same information. I am not making baseless statements. I show you in every case that I have said you're making a baseless statement just how you're making a baseless statement.
We've gone over this religion being attacked topic several times. I have provided cases and the tests that the Supreme Court uses to rule them. Thus I have proven that the Supreme Court is supporting religion more than any other branch of government. We've gone over why public places are allowed to deny people from setting up religious displays in certain areas if they please. Sometimes they do not. If I can recall I think New York City has a huge christmas tree every year that they light up. Many cities also allow for Salvation Army Santas to collect donations on street sidewalks.
Apparently others have already enlightened you on the fact that all the in god we trust stuff came from the Red Scare in the 50's and 60's. The founding fathers did not begin this.
I don't know what to say though. You're not listening. When you do listen, you misinterpret most of the time. I don't know how you could misread Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion to be Congress shall make no law establishing religion.
From what I'm reading, you've convinced no one of anything. I don't see many people objecting to my proof that I've brought through court cases, legal doctrine, etc..
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
permanentjaun you have made the most explicit and clear statements regarding the issue that i have seen anywhere, and i read far and wide...
i am lazy, and i don't really like to type, since i didn't learn until i was in my forties, and i still suk...
strider represents (whether he knows it or not) a political movement in this country that is one of the most hypocritical and dishonest political action groups ever in the US... most of his "talking points" come straight outa Liberty University or the 700 club....
the US supreme court is in fact the last bastion of freedom in America and faces several severe tests in the next few years....
the interesting thing about THE Court is that even tho politicians appoint them? they USUALLY end up casting aside the politics (not vice versa) and doing the right thing.... USUALLY, not always... i don't like the recent rulings on emminent domain very much
remeber when Delay tried to get them to "save" that brain dead girl in Fla last summer? the Supreme Court kicked hizbutt...
the core of the religio-extremist "movement" is to politisize, demonize, caricaturize and misrepresent the actions of the "activist" courts... in doing so? these politicians are recruiting the least informed, most easily brainwashed individuals to their "cause"
that's why they won't respond to REASON...
in the end? the political machine built on this type of foundation is doomed to failure...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Your most recent post in this thread, beginning with "You need to take a philosophy class Aragorn.", reminds me of a similar one from me to Aragorn243. Like yours, mine, too, came after time and again providing Aragorn243 with correcrtions to his assertions and seemingly endless corrections due to his inability to handle the English language and even the simplest logic. I tried to warn you, Sir.
There is one addition I would like to add to your excellent discourse on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You have most correctly pointed out that the essential "word" in the Amendment is "respecting". I would extend on that to remind all those that are in the modern habit of thinking "respect" to be nearly a synonym for "fear" that such is NOT its usage in the First Amendment. Rather, as it is used, quite classically, in that Amendment, "respecting" is almost a synonym for "involving" or "relating" or "considering"; that is to say, the Amendment declares that the government cannot be party to any religious thing what-so-ever, either pro or con.
Since the various states are sub-systems of the Federal Government and the various inferior governmental entities of the states are subs-systems of the states, the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution forbids each and every one of them from participating in or even commenting on any religious activity or expression of any kind, either pro or con. Thus, what may be seen as some religious "message" emanating from any agent of the government or any property of the Government is illegal, by statement of the First Amwendment.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is pointless. You clearly see things you have been indoctrinated into seeing. I simply look at the Constitution and take it for what it is, a simple document.
I don't expect to convert any of you, not my intent, and apparent it would be an impossibility.
Like I said several times, if you require interpretation to discover the meaning of the Constitution, you probably come up with an un-Constitutional belief. You have provided very strong examples of this.
The government cannot respect religion yet the Constitution clearly does. You can't even connect the dots on that. You wish to interpret that as something that it is clear it cannot represent. Any case you base on that assumption is thus wrong and you all seem to be latching onto that incorrect assumption.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are incapable of handling either the English languaage or the logic well enough to participate in hones intellectual debate, whether that is by choice or not, I don't know.
The Constitution IS NOT a simple document. It is possibly the most sophisticated bit of writing ever scribed. I have always believed that the members of the Convention didn't understand how beautifully scripted a description of the societies they envisioned they had produced.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
You manage to describe yourself very well when you attempt to describe others. I would strongly recommend you stop doing that as you simply point out the hypocrisy of your accusations.
The Constitution is a very simple document, made to be understood by the people, not a select few. It is those that are uncomfortable with what the Constitution contains that claim it to be sophisticated, so sophisticated it takes special judgement and knowledge to comprehend. Through this special, sophisticated judgement, they interpret things which it does not contain to solve the little "uncomfortable" problems they feel it contains.
Why is it that liberals fear Constitutionalist judges? Constituionalist meaning they interpret it for what it is. They fear it because it takes away the mis-interpretations that have slowly been built upon since the 1960's.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's ironic that you need to go on for pages and pages about how "simple" it is, and odd that your interpretation of this "very simple document" is contrary to that of many (probably most) US Citizens'.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: The Constitution is a very simple document, made to be understood by the people, not a select few.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to see theres debate going on about this issue, its very intresting to see what everyones point of view is espeically on subjects such as the one i presented.
Here is something else to consider when talking about the patriot act. I am for the good things this document provides, such as the sharing of information between law enforcment and intelligence agencies, im for them working closer togeather to catch criminals and prevent crimes. This is a good thing.
My main concerns really are with what the document is tring to do and what it can do. It appears that this document is to help protect us lowly helpless Americans from terrorist from around the world. One solution, lift gun bans. If everyone carried a gun around like the west then we wouldent have many "terrorist" issues. If you think about it America never go invaded by any other nation because they were afraid of us, every citizen had a gun, and knew how to use it. So America was nothing more then a populous that was a standing army, not so much the case anymore, tho i have my 22 and winchestor shotgun.
My fear is that the government will always point to a boogy man thats hiding in the closet and while your looking to where hes pointing more is being taken from you. Terrorism can always be attributed to anything, thats the beauty of it. They (being the American government) took advantage of the situation and are now putting things in place. Whos to say a bomb goes off in another embassy, its terrorist. Whos to say there are not terroist cells funded by american government monies. I would like to clarify im not saying this is the case but the possibility does exists. Nothing is impossible, only improbably, accept when it comes to government.
What was the best way the Catholic Church kept the their patrons under control and kept generations coming back to them. F.E.A.R. That of the wrath of God, and the fear of going to hell. It worked for Centuries, not so much anymore but from id say the later part of the 10th Century to about midway through the 20th Century. Thats a long reign. This can be analgous today, the best way to keep a populous under control, now a days, is Fear of terrorist. The only differnce between religion and terrorist is tangability, and i will explain.
The existance of God is based on faith, more so now then before because anything over the past melinnea could be seen as "GOD's Doing". But terrorism has been proven and seen through bombings and the Twin towers. So you have a "real" constant threat out there that the people in office will always beable to point at. And if the populace ever gets complacent about it, they can blow something else up to drive that fear back into them.
This is unfortunately something very real that could be going on. Conspiracy theory, more then likely, but still kinda neat to think about the intracasy of what could be. Now how it relates to TPA is, if there is always a threat then there we always be a need, and if there is always a need then there will be room for modifications to employ new restictions and infrigments on rights and civil liberties. Its all a matter of how they make the system work.
Now i would hope that the elected officials are not that stupid to try and take away and keep our rights, but having faith in something that may be wool over your eyes is crazy. I cannot believe the people sitting on capitol hill have my best intrest at heart, im under the impression they have the attitude "its all about me". Unfortunately when a government takes too much away, care only for themselves and do nothing for the people who elected them, There is only one possible outcome. Revolution. If things dont change i can honestly see people revolting, there is only so much people can take and once that limit is reached people will revolt. The worst case scenario is that the military will sieze power and will become a militaristic state. Our actions today dictate tommorrow.
How does one person stop an inevitable outcome?
-------------------- M.M. Semester #3 started,Only 7 more semesters to go. Why, in an age where information is so easy to get, cant we find information on one man. Experience is something you dont get until just after you need it. Posts: 1002 | From: Southaven, Mississippi, US | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
