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.
I'm just asking for you to explain to me how a bunch of states that all had official state religions would actually ratify a constitution that restricted their right to have their state religions. You guys whine about there being this "separation"...but it doesn't actually exist.
It was just proven to you, but you fail to grasp what is being presented.
Whether it be "Separation of Church and State" or any other issue...as it is now "The Law" is nothing more than the enacted concepts of "How Some People At The Time Thought Things Should Be Legally Compelled To Be"...and it is a terrible arbiter.
No, it fantastic - considering the alternative is to strictly and irrationally apply black letter law written in another century to fact patterns in this one. This is the main reason and benefit of having a common law system.
That is what you are REALLY arguing against. That judicial decisions should not be law. That judges should have no discretion in interpreting the law in light of the facts and circumstances of a case. That judges have no power to construe a law to avoid an unjust and ludicrous result. That is what you are proposing, and it's stupid. So stupid that our wise founders rejected these arguments and adopted the common law system we have.
Quote:
Laws, where ever they are "drawn up" reflect the bias of the authors and are typically changed/amended/repealed by new authors to suit what they consider the "current ideal"...the "ideal" that suits them at the time, of course.
Welcome to representative democracy.
Quote:
So, what "version" of The Constitution is "right"?
The one we have now?
The one that sanctioned slavery and denied female rights?
The one that proscribed booze?
Some other "version"?
THE REAL PROBLEM is it's messed up to be governed by "Laws" that are determined, if voted upon by less than the entire adult populace...never mind just nine people. How can that fairly determine what should be legally concluded right or wrong for all?
I think you really don't understand how the system works. The examples you cite actually illustrate my point. It was the MAJORITY that voted for Prohibition. Shame on the court for not having the courage to strike it down, but it was your majority that did that. Ditto your other examples.
Quote:
The only TRULY FAIR way to determine "how things should be"...is to poll all the citizens, and enforce the majority view. True Democracy.
You can't ever satisfy everyone...so the best you can do is satisfy the most possible.
Thus ensuring the tyranny of the majority over those rights we hold sacred, something that our founders absolutely, positively did not want, hence the existence of the Bill of Rights. It's pointless to have guaranteed constitutional rights - like free speech - if they can be taken away by the whim of the majority every election.
This is one of the basic and fundamental aspects of American government, and you don't like it? Delta is ready when you are.
Quote:
Anything else is "less fair".
Only if you believe that "fair" is always what the majority wants. Therefore slavery was fair. Men only voting was fair. Segregation was fair. Custodial interrogation without access to counsel was fair. Double jeopardy is fair. State endorsed or even coerced religion would be fair.
I could go on.
Quote:
We have the technology to be able to actually manifest a Country that is REALLY "of The People, by The People, and for The People".
Yes, we do. It's imperfect, but not because we have an independent judicial branch empowered to interpret the law to avoid injustice and absurdity.
Thank God for that, or we would all be at the mercy of people who think like you.
No catman...refering to my club as a "prostitute" business, was a "personal slam".
I believe minority rights would be protected...most wouldn't vote to oppress minorities...if it ever even came up for a vote. Not in the U.S. anyway.
I don't believe Democracy is "the tyranny of the majority"...though some try to claim that's what it is.
BTW...Hope your Holiday Season is going good. Though I know that means you working, while you watch others doing a lot of partying. At least those holiday gigs always pay a nice premium!
That's not a chance I'm willing to take. Minorities have been oppressed too many times in our history to believe that it would never happen again because "This is America."
No, it fantastic - considering the alternative is to strictly and irrationally apply black letter law written in another century to fact patterns in this one. This is the main reason and benefit of having a common law system.
That is what you are REALLY arguing against. That judicial decisions should not be law. That judges should have no discretion in interpreting the law in light of the facts and circumstances of a case. That judges have no power to construe a law to avoid an unjust and ludicrous result. That is what you are proposing, and it's stupid. So stupid that our wise founders rejected these arguments and adopted the common law system we have.
Welcome to representative democracy.
I think you really don't understand how the system works. The examples you cite actually illustrate my point. It was the MAJORITY that voted for Prohibition. Shame on the court for not having the courage to strike it down, but it was your majority that did that. Ditto your other examples.
Thus ensuring the tyranny of the majority over those rights we hold sacred, something that our founders absolutely, positively did not want, hence the existence of the Bill of Rights. It's pointless to have guaranteed constitutional rights - like free speech - if they can be taken away by the whim of the majority every election.
This is one of the basic and fundamental aspects of American government, and you don't like it? Delta is ready when you are.
Only if you believe that "fair" is always what the majority wants. Therefore slavery was fair. Men only voting was fair. Segregation was fair. Custodial interrogation without access to counsel was fair. Double jeopardy is fair. State endorsed or even coerced religion would be fair.
I could go on.
Yes, we do. It's imperfect, but not because we have an independent judicial branch empowered to interpret the law to avoid injustice and absurdity.
Thank God for that, or we would all be at the mercy of people who think like you.
Oh, I see how the system works.
Those votes that you say "it was the MAJORITY that voted" wasn't a vote by the majority of the PEOPLE...it was a majority of Congress.
IMO...not as "fair"...as it's too small a sample to fully achieve "the will of the people".
But we needed that then...the "rep system"...as it was a logistic impossibility to get all the people to the polls to vote. That's not the case anymore.
You know it is a big issue...that members of the Judicial Branch are "overstepping".
MOF...it's sooooooo bad...they are thinking of being able to haul members of the Judicial Branch in front of the Legislative Branch to be "squared away" when they try to "legislate from the bench".
It will be interesting to see where that goes. If the Repubs win the next election...I'm pretty sure it will happen.
And you are only assuming the majority of the people would want slavery, men only voting, segregation, custodial interrogation without access to counsel, double jeopardy, state endorsed or even coerced religion, etc.
MOF...I believe the reason we had some of those things is because Congress didn't carry out "the will of the People" and voted in some horrible stuff that the general population (including both genders and all races) would have never passed in a general poll.
Representative Democracy is better than most systems...but IMO not as "fair" as Pure Democracy and a system that runs by "We, The People".
If you think people are so bad they couldn't be trusted to vote with fairness and justice...how can a government composed of people...and "slick" ones at that...be given greater trust?
Now show me where there is to be a "separation of church and state". Or show me where it says that a State cannot have an official state religion (9 of the original 13 did), or that a city cannot have any kind of official display of religion. To this point you've just proven yourself wrong.
The nuttiness necessary in politics dictates that politicians will try to play with human emotions. And nothing does a better job than religion, icing on the top... majority religion. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many, if not most, at the time would have liked to take advantage of the religion card. But the most influential of founders, fortunately, knew better and could do something about it.
You claim "Separation of Church and State" doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The fact is, that it does, and that would be the First Amendment. The problem with your understanding is that you're refusing to accept the reality by using a deflection, looking for the phrase verbatim. Let us look at the words of the person who is the author of the US Constitution, and presented the Bill of Rights:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
- James Madison, 1820
Now, would you mind explaining which part of the US Constitution James Madison is referring to? Or, do you believe he was delusional and/or lying about it?
America has never operated on a system where the entire population votes. Colonies sent delegates to Philly to represent their entire colony in declaring Independence and it has worked that way ever since.
The nuttiness necessary in politics dictates that politicians will try to play with human emotions. And nothing does a better job than religion, icing on the top... majority religion. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many, if not most, at the time would have liked to take advantage of the religion card. But the most influential of founders, fortunately, knew better and could do something about it.
You claim "Separation of Church and State" doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The fact is, that it does, and that would be the First Amendment. The problem with your understanding is that you're refusing to accept the reality by using a deflection, looking for the phrase verbatim. Let us look at the words of the person who is the author of the US Constitution, and presented the Bill of Rights:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
- James Madison, 1820
Now, would you mind explaining which part of the US Constitution James Madison is referring to? Or, do you believe he was delusional and/or lying about it?
Right after you show me a part of the US Constitution that actually says there is to be no religion in the state.
Honestly...you guys are like broken records continually repeating your whine. It's ridiculous. The separation does not exist except for a few quotes from certain founding fathers in letters they wrote or an opinion they gave outside of it.
At this point, I'm growing tired of this argument. As with other issues, I'm convinced anyone that self-identifies as an atheist is so hard-headed they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
Right after you show me a part of the US Constitution that actually says there is to be no religion in the state.
Honestly...you guys are like broken records continually repeating your whine. It's ridiculous. The separation does not exist except for a few quotes from certain founding fathers in letters they wrote or an opinion they gave outside of it.
At this point, I'm growing tired of this argument. As with other issues, I'm convinced anyone that self-identifies as an atheist is so hard-headed they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
It definitely, positively, does exist. The Supreme Court says it does, and that is the final answer. In order for that to change, get an Amendment passed to overrule the court. Otherwise, you are just plain wrong.
BTW, I have never self-identified as anything, other than a lover of the Constitution.
GldnRule: I don't think MC meant it as a "personal slam". In any case, the rights of those who hold minority viewpoints must be protected. Democracy isn't "tyranny of the majority".
It was meant as a direct example of how he would personally be affected by his wish to have "true democracy rule". Even if it wasn't sharia laws that were the majority wish; if it were the christians that took over, Gld would still be forced to shut down his sex peddling establishment.
It definitely, positively, does exist. The Supreme Court says it does, and that is the final answer.
The SCOTUS "says it does" despite no actual existence. lol..ok. whatever.
Quote:
In order for that to change, get an Amendment passed to overrule the court. Otherwise, you are just plain wrong.
BTW, I have never self-identified as anything, other than a lover of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS was wrong. They've made wrong decisions before, and will again. Hopefully a real conservative in office might appoint judges that actually read the Constitution instead of just rolling their own.
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.
