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: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I think you're extremely naive if you think the courts are immune from politics. They have made the decisions they made because they have an agenda. They didn't make those decisions and rule the way they did because they actually read the Constitution. Honestly...just read our Constitution, will you? It says NOTHING regarding this, and gives the states freedom to do as they want.
You better read up on Everson v. Board of Education decision. Handed down by SCOTUS in 1947, and all courts since then, conservative AND liberal, have upheld it. The States do NOT have the freedom to do as they want. That. Is. The. Law.
What was it based on?
....was based upon the writing of James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments) and Thomas Jefferson (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom).
You know, the guys who actually wrote the Constitution, and explained what they meant. Those guys. Methinks Jefferson and Madison may know just a bit more about this then you claim.
You better read up on Everson v. Board of Education decision. Handed down by SCOTUS in 1947, and all courts since then, conservative AND liberal, have upheld it. The States do NOT have the freedom to do as they want. That. Is. The. Law.
What was it based on?
....was based upon the writing of James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments) and Thomas Jefferson (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom).
You know, the guys who actually wrote the Constitution, and explained what they meant. Those guys. Methinks Jefferson and Madison may know just a bit more about this then you claim.
And the decision was wrong. As you say, they didn't make the ruling based on what the Constitution actually SAYS as much as they made it on extra writings outside of the Constitution. One cannot reasonably make a ruling on the constitutionality of something based on documents that are NOT part of the constitution.
The fact that it has since been upheld only demonstrates that people would rather go along to get along rather than rock the boat.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
And the decision was wrong.
You're making that assertion with out backing it up. I gave you why SCOTUS made the decision.
Regardless, right or wrong (I don't always agree with Supreme Court decisions either, and in fact, have been involved on the losing end of one some years ago here), it IS the law and it IS the Constitution.
Like Canada, the US is a nation of laws. Not opinions. The rule of law applies, whether you like it or not.
You're making that assertion with out backing it up. I gave you why SCOTUS made the decision.
Regardless, right or wrong (I don't always agree with Supreme Court decisions either, and in fact, have been involved on the losing end of one some years ago here), it IS the law and it IS the Constitution.
Like Canada, the US is a nation of laws. Not opinions. The rule of law applies, whether you like it or not.
I would suggest you go back and read my response. I edited it apparently before you hit "Submit" on this post.
So you are perfectly fine with a school district forcing children to do things that go against their beliefs? You are perfectly fine with them being marginalized in the name of religion? You are perfectly fine with them being treated as lesser in their community because they don't believe as you? Want to tell us again how you aren't all for a theocracy?
Fact is, whether you admit it or not, not everyone has the option to just up and move (or homeschool). Especially in the backwaters that are typically associated with this ignorant nonsense.
And the decision was wrong. As you say, they didn't make the ruling based on what the Constitution actually SAYS as much as they made it on extra writings outside of the Constitution. One cannot reasonably make a ruling on the constitutionality of something based on documents that are NOT part of the constitution.
I will grant that you are at least consistent in that you're affording the same sort of reverence to the constitution that you do to the Bible, even though I doubt you consider the constitution divinely inspired. But strict constructionist approaches to the constitution are basically the same concept as the strict literalist approach to the Bible.
I can't really buy it though. A perfect example is the right to bear arms ... an article that was written in a very different situation with very different weapons technology than is available today. I am more interested in the spirit than the letter in such debates. What did the authors of the constitution intend? What were they trying to accomplish? And then how is that intent best applied in the current situation and our current understanding of morality?
You also have to keep in mind that, unlike the Bible, the constitution is not a static document; it has been amended (for example to rescind considering negroes as 3/5 of a person in the 13th amendment). So even the intent of the original authors isn't sacred when society moves on in its understanding of liberty, freedom and other concepts.
And the decision was wrong. As you say, they didn't make the ruling based on what the Constitution actually SAYS as much as they made it on extra writings outside of the Constitution. One cannot reasonably make a ruling on the constitutionality of something based on documents that are NOT part of the constitution.
The fact that it has since been upheld only demonstrates that people would rather go along to get along rather than rock the boat.
If you're going to use a strict reading of the Constitution and ONLY the Constitution in lawmaking, then you should visit your nearest Air Force base and tell the commander there that having an Air Force is currently unconstitutional since a strict reading of the Constitution only allows for an army and a navy.
And the decision was wrong. As you say, they didn't make the ruling based on what the Constitution actually SAYS as much as they made it on extra writings outside of the Constitution. One cannot reasonably make a ruling on the constitutionality of something based on documents that are NOT part of the constitution.
The fact that it has since been upheld only demonstrates that people would rather go along to get along rather than rock the boat.
Isn't it marvellous Yet again, if it doesn't suit them, these people want to throw the Laws in the bin on the grounds it is only being enacted so as not to offend the tiny minority of atheists who have no numbers, power or influence in a "Christian" (in fact if not in Law) "Nation under God".
Again, nota bene, the Christian flag is hoisted above the Union flag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I would suggest you go back and read my response. I edited it apparently before you hit "Submit" on this post.
It's still a load of cobblers, even after editing.
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.
Yet again, if it doesn't suit them, these people want to throw the Laws in the bin on the grounds it is only being enacted so as not to offend the tiny minority of atheists who have no numbers, power or influence in a "Christian" (in fact if not in Law) "Nation under God".
