Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These "Merry Christmas" laws are in direct defiance of the Supreme Court. The thing about the Supreme Court is that it's... supreme. It supersedes.
For now. We'll see in the future if Mr. Trump is able to replace a liberal justice or two. Even beyond that, many cases may not get anywhere once he starts filling judicial vacancies at lower court levels.
For now. We'll see in the future if Mr. Trump is able to replace a liberal justice or two. Even beyond that, many cases may not get anywhere once he starts filling judicial vacancies at lower court levels.
I understand all of that, and it's well and good. I would like to see how it would stand up in Federal court. The quote also comes from an elected official pandering to a very religious electorate.
well, it looks like we can never reach an agreement. It is okay by me. As a Christian, I am also okay with a Muslim teacher displaying part of the Koran on her work desk.
To me, I know a drama queen (not implying any posters here are drama queens) when I see one.
ANYBODY who are offended by a poster with biblical reference fit the description of a drama queen, in my humble opinion. lol
There are real civil right fighters (like MLK), and there are.. well... drama queens lol
Sorry, but you are incorrect. They no longer have a state religion because it is unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land, and no state or local laws can contradict the constitution. If that weren't the case non-federal cases would never go to the Supreme Court. If state law did not have to abide by the Constitution states could still make laws legalizing slavering or taking away a woman's right to vote
That is 100% factually incorrect.
Each state makes their own determination and it is NOT a violation of the first amendment.
To suggest otherwise is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of the first amendment.
Basically you are trying to argue that a state establishing an "official" religion is a violation of the first amendment even though some of the states that ratified the constitution had official state religions at the time of ratification? Really? Is that what you think? How can that possibly be?
With regard to the slavery and women's suffrage, those were AMENDMENTS to the constitution which explicitly state that they are federal mandates.
Here are some interesting tidbits from a few state constitutions:
New Hampshire - Until 1877 their state constitution required that one be of the Protestant faith to hold legislative office. 1877, that's 88 years after the Establishment Clause was written. Do you think they just unaware? They changed that part of THEIR state constitution themselves. It was NEVER rules unconstitutional because IT ISN'T.
Georgia - in 1789 they decided to adopt a similar clause in THEIR state constitution baring the state from establishing any official religion.
North Carolina - Until 1835 only Protestants could hold public office. They amended that to include Catholics. It wasn't until 1961 that the SCOTUS decided that was somehow unconstitutional when it had not been for almost 200 years. Yes the SAME SCOTUS that took God out of public schools.
Make no mistake THAT is the very definition of "legislating from the bench". They suddenly decided that the meaning had changed, when of course it had not.
Why bother going through the hassle of writing an amendment and getting support for said amendment when you can just appoint activist judges who will trample the Constitution and rewrite it to suit their fancy?
Each state makes their own determination and it is NOT a violation of the first amendment.
To suggest otherwise is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of the first amendment.
Basically you are trying to argue that a state establishing an "official" religion is a violation of the first amendment even though some of the states that ratified the constitution had official state religions at the time of ratification? Really? Is that what you think? How can that possibly be?
With regard to the slavery and women's suffrage, those were AMENDMENTS to the constitution which explicitly state that they are federal mandates.
Here are some interesting tidbits from a few state constitutions:
New Hampshire - Until 1877 their state constitution required that one be of the Protestant faith to hold legislative office. 1877, that's 88 years after the Establishment Clause was written. Do you think they just unaware? They changed that part of THEIR state constitution themselves. It was NEVER rules unconstitutional because IT ISN'T.
Georgia - in 1789 they decided to adopt a similar clause in THEIR state constitution baring the state from establishing any official religion.
North Carolina - Until 1835 only Protestants could hold public office. They amended that to include Catholics. It wasn't until 1961 that the SCOTUS decided that was somehow unconstitutional when it had not been for almost 200 years. Yes the SAME SCOTUS that took God out of public schools.
Make no mistake THAT is the very definition of "legislating from the bench". They suddenly decided that the meaning had changed, when of course it had not.
Why bother going through the hassle of writing an amendment and getting support for said amendment when you can just appoint activist judges who will trample the Constitution and rewrite it to suit their fancy?
Originally, yes. This has since been deemed unconstitutional by extension of the first amendment.
Each state makes their own determination and it is NOT a violation of the first amendment.
To suggest otherwise is indicative of a complete lack of understanding of the first amendment.
Basically you are trying to argue that a state establishing an "official" religion is a violation of the first amendment even though some of the states that ratified the constitution had official state religions at the time of ratification? Really? Is that what you think? How can that possibly be?
With regard to the slavery and women's suffrage, those were AMENDMENTS to the constitution which explicitly state that they are federal mandates.
Here are some interesting tidbits from a few state constitutions:
New Hampshire - Until 1877 their state constitution required that one be of the Protestant faith to hold legislative office. 1877, that's 88 years after the Establishment Clause was written. Do you think they just unaware? They changed that part of THEIR state constitution themselves. It was NEVER rules unconstitutional because IT ISN'T.
Georgia - in 1789 they decided to adopt a similar clause in THEIR state constitution baring the state from establishing any official religion.
North Carolina - Until 1835 only Protestants could hold public office. They amended that to include Catholics. It wasn't until 1961 that the SCOTUS decided that was somehow unconstitutional when it had not been for almost 200 years. Yes the SAME SCOTUS that took God out of public schools.
Make no mistake THAT is the very definition of "legislating from the bench". They suddenly decided that the meaning had changed, when of course it had not.
Why bother going through the hassle of writing an amendment and getting support for said amendment when you can just appoint activist judges who will trample the Constitution and rewrite it to suit their fancy?
I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you are the one who misunderstands the law. They weren't ruled unconstitutional because they were never challenged in court. An unconstitutional law can be passed today, but won't be ruled as such until it reaches the court system. The US Constitution supersedes ALL other laws in the United States, and there is a clause that prevents any religious test for office, as well as the First Amendment which prevents the state establishing religion.
I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you are the one who misunderstands the law. They weren't ruled unconstitutional because they were never challenged in court. An unconstitutional law can be passed today, but won't be ruled as such until it reaches the court system. The US Constitution supersedes ALL other laws in the United States, and there is a clause that prevents any religious test for office, as well as the First Amendment which prevents the state establishing religion.
That's because the people weren't a bunch of divided, incompatible foreigners wanting to challenge the law and judges and the court weren't activist SJW willing to rewrite the laws until primarily more recent decades.
I find it telling that leftist have a narrow view of the 1st amendment speech and for the traditional Christian religion and 2nd amendment, but have the broadest view of the 1st amendment for all purposes beneficial to the foreign, alien religion of islam and its importation and mainstreaming.
When enemies selectively re-interpret and co-opt your constitution to use it against you, it has no useful value.
snipped - to clarify the section my response relates to.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson
snipped - to clarify the section my response relates to.
Those are just a few...
Have you ever read the letter FROM the Danbury Baptist Church to which Jefferson was responding?
Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.
As you can clearly see, the letter to Jefferson was questioning whether this new form of Government would truly respect religious freedom, since the understanding had always been that Religion was not an inalienable right and thus subject to the whim of legislators.
Jefferson's response was to assure the Baptist Church that Religion was not to be within the purview of the GOVERNMENT. It has nothing at all to do with Religion being exercised openly in the public square. This is a fallacy created out of whole cloth by the secular humanist of the left.
All involved with this gross misappropriation of government funds should be fired.
Sorry, but the best response to someone that takes issue with a poster depicting a decades old cartoon is the response of "shut your face", and then throwing them out of whichever office they're lodging the complaint with. All I see here is thousands of taxpayer dollars SHREDDED to appease some whiny *******.
Even beyond public spaces, any workplace comes with rules. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but at my workplace there are plenty of things I can't display at my desk. I am not being censored, I reasonably accept that while I am at work there are different standards. In my private life outside of work I can say or do anything I like.
IF you work for a private company, then what you can and cannot display on your desk is up to your employer.
I worked at a well known company and remember a time when some lefty walked past a coworker's office and that person had an open bible on her desk. The nosy lefty wondered aloud if "that is even legal.." Idiot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
