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.
Seems she is rewriting the US Constitution, nowhere in the Constitution does it state anything she is trying to make us believe it says.
1st Amendement of the US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
LOL! Wow! that is high praise! I dont get to listen to Mark very often (almost never) as work conflicts with his show and i dont spend much time in the car.
But that dude is as solid on the constitution as anyone alive. I hope he wouldnt hate my arguments here anyway!
I wish I could remember what evening that was, I would link you up. However, if you want to know what he says, just re-read your posts.
You stated the case in the same way I had heard him state.
I work two accounts and I drive to them. If it wasn't for that, I would probably never know about Mark Levin.
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the day amounts to a call for religious action.
Clip:
Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a "significant secular purpose" and doesn't amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.
"It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," she wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience."
1st Amendement of the US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
So... how many times do we have to re-state what the word "establish" means in this context before you get it?
1st Amendement of the US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
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 legitimate 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.
Quote:
Legal Definition of Proclamation
The president's proclamation has not the force of law, unless when authorized by congress; as if congress were to pass an act,
A proclamation by itself, is not a law. So in essence the formal announcement is taken away, thereby insuring so will go the same way as 'free speech'.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 04-19-2010 at 12:27 PM..
Reason: emphasis added underlined the words!
1st Amendement of the US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
A proclamation by itself, is not a law. So in essence the formal announcement is taken away, thereby insuring so will go the same way as 'free speech'.
Nobody's prohibiting anyone from praying. The ruling just takes away the government recognition of a day set aside for prayer, which has high religious connotations, and can easily be seen as breaking the establishment clause.
Nobody's prohibiting anyone from praying. The ruling just takes away the government recognition of a day set aside for prayer, which has high religious connotations, and can easily be seen as breaking the establishment clause.
What part of this did you not get? Legal Definition of Proclamation
The president's proclamation has not the force of law, unless when authorized by congress; as if congress were to pass an act,
The part that is was not a force of law?
Trust me I'd love to tell that man to shut up too....looks to me like that is what that judge just did!
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.
So in essence the formal announcement is taken away, thereby insuring so will go the same way as 'free speech'.
