Why do Democrats find Strict Constitutionalists threatening? (legal, borders, Obama)
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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,579,302 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Birthright citizenship was designed to protect freed slaves that were born here.
It wasn't designed to be a loophole in immigration law to allow illegal aliens to stay in America because they sneaked in over the border to drop a baby on American soil.
According to you guys! It doesn't say that in the constitution!
Again, religious nuts have no business on our courts
The founding fathers disagree with you, and many of them were the furthest thing from religious nuts.
Article 6
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
And I am agnostic. I don't care if the judge is a religious nut as long as they believe in the Constitution and that they are to adjudicate laws and determine if a specific law is constitutional. They should never legislate from the bench. If they find any portion of a law violates the constitution then they should give a clear and concise ruling as to why and send it back to congress to fix. Pretty simple stuff, if your not a partisan political nut mascerading as a "judge".
Uh, yes it does. Engel v Vitale established that! Or do you want THAT overturned as well?!?
Reading comprehension problem?
I said "as in it's INFLUENCE on American laws and culture".
Every country on the planet uses the influence of religion to make law, as it's basic concepts of right and wrong transcend different religions.
It's influence is inescapable.
Freedom of religion just means that there can't be a state sanctioned religion and that no one can force YOU to to subscribe to any religion over another, or any at all.
It DOES NOT mean that you have any expectations of the INFLUENCE of religion in general having a role in shaping laws and culture.
Engle v Vitale was about forced prayer in schools because THAT constituted a state sanctioned religion.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 10-27-2020 at 03:54 AM..
Reason: Personal attack
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,579,302 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Reading comprehension problem?
I said "as in it's INFLUENCE on American laws and culture".
Every country on the planet uses the influence of religion to make law, as it's basic concepts of right and wrong transcend different religions.
It's influence is inescapable.
Freedom of religion just means that there can't be a state sanctioned religion and that no one can force YOU to to subscribe to any religion over another, or any at all.
It DOES NOT mean that you have any expectations of the INFLUENCE of religion in general having a role in shaping laws and culture.
Engle v Vitale was about forced prayer in schools because THAT constituted a state sanctioned religion.
That's your position, my position is that law should be secular in this country so as not to disenfranchise the non religious or non Christians
What the Democratic Party and its members find threatening is the politicization of the Supreme Court by the Republicans.
As to this thread's hypocritical title I say look no further than the new Supreme Court Justice. Barrett made a mockery of the supposed “originalism” and “textualism” she professes to practice. She conspicuously refused to say whether a president could unilaterally postpone an election and whether voter intimidation is illegal — matters unarguable under the clear words of the Constitution and statutes.
This was a repulsive public display of hypocrisy by Mitch McConnell and Trump in an effort to turn the third equal branch of our government into their partisan tool. Trying to claim it is Democrats and other patriotic Americans who fear the Constitution, as this thread and "poll" suggests, is equally repulsive.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,579,302 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgypsy
What the Democratic Party and its members find threatening is the politicization of the Supreme Court by the Republicans.
As to this thread's hypocritical title I say look no further than the new Supreme Court Justice. Barrett made a mockery of the supposed “originalism” and “textualism” she professes to practice. She conspicuously refused to say whether a president could unilaterally postpone an election and whether voter intimidation is illegal — matters unarguable under the clear words of the Constitution and statutes.
This was a repulsive public display of hypocrisy by Mitch McConnell and Trump in an effort to turn the third equal branch of our government into their partisan tool. Trying to claim it is Democrats and other patriotic Americans who fear the Constitution, as this thread and "poll" suggests, is equally repulsive.
What the Democratic Party and its members find threatening is the politicization of the Supreme Court by the Republicans.
As to this thread's hypocritical title I say look no further than the new Supreme Court Justice. Barrett made a mockery of the supposed “originalism” and “textualism” she professes to practice. She conspicuously refused to say whether a president could unilaterally postpone an election and whether voter intimidation is illegal — matters unarguable under the clear words of the Constitution and statutes.
This was a repulsive public display of hypocrisy by Mitch McConnell and Trump in an effort to turn the third equal branch of our government into their partisan tool. Trying to claim it is Democrats and other patriotic Americans who fear the Constitution, as this thread and "poll" suggests, is equally repulsive.
That's your position, my position is that law should be secular in this country so as not to disenfranchise the non religious or non Christians
Your position isn't the law.
But laws CAN be secular in nature while still having a basis in religion.
Laws against murder are based on "thou shalt not kill".
It just so happens that secular dogma agrees that murder is wrong.
Where they part ways is in what constitutes murder/killing.
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.
