Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-630 next last
To: SunStar
Once again illustrating (a) the importance of getting Estrada confirmed to the 11th Circuit, and;
(b) making d@mn sure that Alberto Gonzalez doesn't get appointed to so much as dogcatcher.
501 posted on 07/02/2003 12:10:17 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Derrald
States can endorse a religion.

Nobody wants to address that.

They would rather wait until all the Muslims have voting power, and then bring it to a vote.
502 posted on 07/02/2003 12:16:30 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Finally, one thing should be clear. A bunch of people here continually reference the Declaration of Independence. I love the Declaration of Independence. But it is NOT THE LAW.

No, but the principles set out in the DofI are the basis for the law. If you contradict what you set out to do in the first place (form a government that recognized that men are bestowed inalienable rights by their creator) then you're obviously doing something wrong - something not within the original design. This concept of an infallible group of life-appointed judges dictating from the bench is wholly alien to the DofI and the Constitution.

503 posted on 07/02/2003 12:40:54 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Yes, and everyone can see how much classs you have with your namecalling like a 4 year old. It seems 3 fingers are pointing back at you when you accuse me - you hypocrite. My comment was directed at every liberal judge who usurps powers not given by law, and who rules that babies can be killed in the womb. I live in America - I don't answer to you. I hereby challenge you to call me a coward or lowlife to my face or call me a disgrace to my uniform - you must feel real safe with your namecalling in your little cocoon behind your computer - no doubt you are one of those guys who cut people off on the freeway while using sign language. Do you have a bumper sticker on your care that says "Horn broke, watch for finger?" Tell you what - anytime you think you are MAN ENOUGH to say those words to my face, just send me a private e-mail and we'll try to set it up.
504 posted on 07/02/2003 12:42:35 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Oh and by the way, I just LOVE IT when people like you get resentful and angry. An old proverb says that it's better to give a resentment than get one.
505 posted on 07/02/2003 12:46:24 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
This line from your profile says it all:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell - Mr. god-hater reprobate himself. That says alot about you pal.

506 posted on 07/02/2003 12:48:34 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Read the debates on the First Amendment's adoption and then get back to me.
507 posted on 07/02/2003 12:51:10 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Fine. You decide for yourself what the Constitution says and means. You're a little supreme court. Forget what over 200 years of what some pretty smart people have written.

The constitution was written in simple language not in some 800 page document that only a lawyer can understand. Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

508 posted on 07/02/2003 12:56:16 PM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

Is this the question? The answer is that slavery has always been wrong as our D of I clearly states. If this issue had been raised in 1787, a republic would have been impossible. However, that is no excuse, and it resulted in the most bloody of wars. The framers acknowledged that chattel slavery was wrong but were perplexed as to how to deal with it. The Supreme Court didn't abolish slavery, War, Lincoln and the 13th amendment combined to abolish it once and for all. In fact, the SCOTUS upheld it in Dred Scott. Courts don't make laws remember (I know that's tough for you to accept). The framers weren't perfect, but they were not moral relativists and machiavellian pragmatists as many justices are today. There, I answered your question. You must have been taught the revisionist version of history eh?

509 posted on 07/02/2003 12:59:11 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: exmarine; lugsoul; Admin Moderator
Tell you what - anytime you think you are MAN ENOUGH to say those words to my face, just send me a private e-mail and we'll try to set it up.

I would think that threatening another freeper might border on "No personal attacks." You may want to consider controlling your temper.

510 posted on 07/02/2003 1:00:54 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

It has nothing to do with the intelligence of anyone who reads it. It has everything to do with the fact that reasonable people can read the Constitution and come to different conclusions, especially when applying it to a fact situation.

That is why we have 200 years of disputes over the meaning of the Constitution that have been decided at the US Supreme Court level.

Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.

511 posted on 07/02/2003 1:03:50 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
The constitution was written in simple language not in some 800 page document that only a lawyer can understand. Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.

Amen!

512 posted on 07/02/2003 1:05:57 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.

so basicly words, not to mention the historical context, cannot be understood by the common man, so us common people need someone edgucated at a properly leftist school to learn us what terms like "congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" mean?

513 posted on 07/02/2003 1:22:53 PM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
I didn't threaten anyone - I merely gave him the opportunity to say to my face what he so freely says here.
514 posted on 07/02/2003 1:27:53 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
I would also say that calling someone a "coward" and a "lowlife" and a "disgrace to the uniform" is a PERSONAL ATTACK even by your liberal standards! Then again, Maybe not...
515 posted on 07/02/2003 1:30:40 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
Some parts of the Constitution are more plain than others.

For example

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...
Okay, so we know unreasonable searches aren't unconstitutional. That's the plain language.

But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.

516 posted on 07/02/2003 1:35:53 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

oops,

unreasonable searches are unconstitutional

517 posted on 07/02/2003 1:37:01 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.

you mean it does'nt mean what it says? Just because the constitution is'nt no longer taught in government schools resulting in ignorance of it and thereby opening the door to whatever propoganda the media will report about it, such as the seperation of the church and state, It does'nt mean what it says? Just because politcians have gotten away with making laws that violate it does'nt make those violations a part of it. The government will always chafe at the bit of anything limiting it's power and try to disregard it if it can..the first part was claiming ownership of what's taught in schools and then doing away with teaching the children what the constitution actually said. Then the people those children have grown into will believe whatever the government says about what the constitution says simply because they don't know any better..you have taken it a bit further..promoting what is not in the constitution. The first amendment stops congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting it..the federal government is now prohibiting it via the supreme court until the people who actually grew up before the government stopped teaching the constitution, die off then it can tell the new crop of properly ignorant voters whatever it wants them to believe. Then they will claim, like you, that only the supreme court can grant you rights.

518 posted on 07/02/2003 1:52:29 PM PDT by rottweiller_inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I would also say that calling someone a "coward" and a "lowlife" and a "disgrace to the uniform" is a PERSONAL ATTACK even by your liberal standards!

Here's a hint: anger management. Try it.

519 posted on 07/02/2003 1:52:51 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Here's a hint for you: Try to use the same standard on your liberal brethren as you do on those you don't agree with.
520 posted on 07/02/2003 2:01:22 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
See post #519.
521 posted on 07/02/2003 2:06:06 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
See post 520.
522 posted on 07/02/2003 2:08:35 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: rottweiller_inc
Well, by golly, let's quit teaching Constitutional law in our law schools because these issues aren't complicated. In fact, if we have any questions, we'll just ask you.
523 posted on 07/02/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: pram
"And by removing any public reference to His existence, they hope to increase their numbers."

They also hope to decrease their anxiety during their short stay on earth. If they believe there is no God they can do as they please without conscience or concern. What a shock they are in for - I truly feel bad for these people.

524 posted on 07/02/2003 3:32:44 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You called Judge Ed Carnes, Chief Judge J.L. Edmundson, and Judge Richard Story "godless amoral morons" who support killing babies, and you don't know the first thing about them, nor have you even read the opinion you are attacking. No one here needs to read my characterization to recognize the lack of class and character in those statements. And I'll say that wherever you want, as is my right.
525 posted on 07/02/2003 3:53:18 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

Comment #526 Removed by Moderator

To: exmarine
Also - you should probably brush up on your reading a bit. Mr. Russell didn't hate God. He didn't believe in Him.

I do. But the fact that Russell and I don't share that belief doesn't make his statement any less true, as you prove repeatedly with your posts. Just as his beliefs did not make his work in physics any less accurate. Or, as you like to say, absolute.

So, now you admit that the framers did something wrong for purposes of expedience, and had to change it later. There goes the bottom level of the house of cards.

527 posted on 07/02/2003 3:57:27 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
"Vote for me! Whoo hoo! :p "

LOL

528 posted on 07/02/2003 3:58:02 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
"And who would divide our country in half, establish a new capital in California or Hawaii (opposite of establishment of Constantinople in the East) and make Christianity the state religion....."

Constantine didn't divide the Roman Empire into East and West, that split happened in 393 A.D., long after he was dead. Also, Constantine never made Christianity the "state religion"; he merely legalized it. In 313 A.D. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, granting legal rights to all Christians and restoring their confiscated possessions.

529 posted on 07/02/2003 4:07:52 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
"This is not about the Free Exercise clause. It is about the Establishment Clause. Why not just read the opinion?"

Uh huh. And abortion is about "privacy". And slavery was about Blacks only being 2/3 human. How convenient. Supreme Court decisions, and Appeals Court decisions, are not always reflective of reality, they can say whatever they please, isolate a clause they chose to focus on, and exclude other pertinent clauses they don't want to look at. Two hundred years of American history clearly reveal that the Ten Commandments and other religious declarations, such as prayer, have been posted, etched, engraved, read, spoken and declared in government buildings in every State in the Union. The new-age Court decisions are about the stripping away of previous norms. In this way they will eventually force their own beliefs on all Americans by banning the public expression of our beliefs. We do, after all, live and express our lives out in the public every day. And have you noticed that the more religion is banned the deeper its antithesis, such as pornography, homosexuality, and drug abuse enters in to replace it? This is a spiritual warfare going on here. All these disgusting laws that abolish God from the public accomplish is to foster the opinion that God, and those who love Him, are somehow evil, and must not be seen in public lest they cause harm to some non-believer. It's all B.S.

530 posted on 07/02/2003 4:27:21 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #531 Removed by Moderator

To: freedomsnotfree
As for lawyers...they were, at one time, outlawed in the great state of Virginia.

I never heard of that. Do you have a source?

532 posted on 07/02/2003 5:21:26 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

Comment #533 Removed by Moderator

To: freedomsnotfree
The constitution was written so all the people that were governed by it could understand its meaning.

What do you base that on? The Founders didn't even provide for women to vote. The country was made a republic, not a democracy, because the people couldn't be trusted to know what is good for them.

The Founders didn't even trust the people to elect their own Senators.

I really can't think of any basis for your statement. The document is not long, and most of the words are not complicated.

The principles when they are applied to the real life situations are enormously complicated.

534 posted on 07/02/2003 7:47:39 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

Comment #535 Removed by Moderator

To: Chancellor Palpatine
For a Hindu, you sure post like a fundamentalist Christian.

I have not explained the whole body of my beliefs or philosophy.

536 posted on 07/02/2003 8:43:23 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Two hundred years of American history clearly reveal that the Ten Commandments and other religious declarations, such as prayer, have been posted, etched, engraved, read, spoken and declared in government buildings in every State in the Union.

True - and I wonder how people who think that such is unconstitutional can exmplain this away.

The new-age Court decisions are about the stripping away of previous norms. In this way they will eventually force their own beliefs on all Americans by banning the public expression of our beliefs. We do, after all, live and express our lives out in the public every day.

It is at the point where if there is public expression of religion (and I don't just mean Christianity) it is frowned upon (when not illegal) and religious people are portrayed in media and entertainment as either evil or stupid.

And have you noticed that the more religion is banned the deeper its antithesis, such as pornography, homosexuality, and drug abuse enters in to replace it? This is a spiritual warfare going on here.

I have mentioned several times lately that there are two religions of the world. Worship of the transcendent reality that is God, and worship (in lust or greed) of His creation, in imitation of Him

All these disgusting laws that abolish God from the public accomplish is to foster the opinion that God, and those who love Him, are somehow evil, and must not be seen in public lest they cause harm to some non-believer.

It is a war. And it is time - as someone mentioned on a thread called "Truce" - to put aside theological differences and sectarian concerns, to fight for the cause of God, and against the force of atheism.

537 posted on 07/02/2003 9:06:12 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: pram
It is a war. And it is time - as someone mentioned on a thread called "Truce" - to put aside theological differences and sectarian concerns, to fight for the cause of God, and against the force of atheism.

Truism of the day.

538 posted on 07/02/2003 9:25:02 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Free Miguel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
Does that mean you agree or don't agree?
539 posted on 07/02/2003 9:31:49 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
If you had taken the time to read and understand the context of the post you wouldn't look like such an ignoramus but lacking that degree of integrity on your part all I can suggest is that you butt out.
540 posted on 07/02/2003 11:32:52 PM PDT by FreeLibertarian (You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There is no seperation of church and state in our Constitution. Justices and their inferiors have no authority to write our Constitution. This ruling is not Constitutional because the fruit falls from the same dead tree as the first creatively scheming ruling.

In your face blackrobes with 'who ya' gonna believe? Me or those dead white guys?' is not honored by citizens.

Until these rogue blackrobe rulers are impeached and removed from office for usurping our Law of our Land, as they drive their agenda of power over lawful authority, we'll be faced with more of this bully talk.

"Compelling State interests" are the pass words for the unlawful "living" constitution bullies.

Our ratified Constitution is the very "controlling legal authority" which provides rogue blackrobes their jobs. Making things up, under penalty of law for you and me, is not "good behavior", the requirement for keeping their lucrative, "not for life, boys and girls" jobs.
541 posted on 07/02/2003 11:59:28 PM PDT by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #542 Removed by Moderator

To: lugsoul
I do. But the fact that Russell and I don't share that belief doesn't make his statement any less true, as you prove repeatedly with your posts. Just as his beliefs did not make

I am a well-read individual. I have read debates on the existence of God between Russell and various theists (e.g. Copleston and others). Russell could not defend his position very well in my opinion. You are right - people who don't believe in God don't hate God because they don't beleive God exists - they hate the IDEA of God! I also read of Russell's trip to China where he inexplicably called the rulers "immoral" - which begs the question as to just how immorality can exist without God - there's a question for Russell! Even De Sade understood that without God, there can be no morals ("what is is right").

So, now you admit that the framers did something wrong for purposes of expedience, and had to change it later. There goes the bottom level of the house of cards.

You completely misread me. I never said the framers were infallible, but even though we know they were fallible, that is no excuse for redefining the 1st Amendment. All men are fallible and make mistakes - that's precisely why we have the bill of rights - to prevent a tyrannous govt from oppressing the people; and that's why we have an electoral college - to prevent a tyrannous majority from oppressing the minorities. The founders fully understood the corrupt nature of mankind - apparently, you don't. The structure of the Constituttion was intended to secure our rights and ensure, as far as possible, a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, only a MORAL people and MORAL leaders will honor that system, and many of our leaders and judges are no longer MORAL. I, for one, will not sit by while my rights are eroded by imperious elitists.

I have no reason to avoid your questions. I'm a lifelong student of history - I know full well what was intended by the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and that is what we were discussing. You still haven't explained why the separation of church and state "idea" was not forced down our throats earlier than 1947 if it is a valid reading of the 1st amendment. You can't do it because you know full well that it is a perversion of the 1st Amendment. Only ignorant gullible people (which sadly includes most Americans) are not aware of that, and since we have government schools indoctrinating children with this lie, it's no wonder that it has taken hold.

So, my argument and comments are not so much with this ruling, but with the movement in general.

You called Judge Ed Carnes, Chief Judge J.L. Edmundson, and Judge Richard Story "godless amoral morons" who support killing babies, and you don't know the first thing about them, nor have you even read the opinion you are attacking. No one here needs to read my characterization to recognize the lack of class and character in those statements. And I'll say that wherever you want, as is my right.

I did not intend to specifically call them anything. Actually, my words were intended for any justice who supports abortion or the perversion ("separation" doctrine) of my 1st amendment rights. I know what I meant.

All of that being said, I no longer want to have a discussion with you. You say I have no class, then you proceed to call me all sorts of names (does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?). Try applying your standards to yourself. I would gladly tell liberal judges to their face what I think of them if I had the chance. This isn't Cuba. That's what's beautiful about America - we have freedom of FREE SPEECH - oops! - not when it comes to saying the name of Christ in a high school speech or at a football game! But, one thing is certain, YOU can't shut me up.

543 posted on 07/03/2003 7:08:18 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: freedomsnotfree
I would be curious to find out what percentage of the people at this forum have actually read the entire Constitution. I suspect it's not even close to a majority, although I'd love to be wrong about that.

But even more important than the actual words are the concepts and principles that were being laid down. It's the study of that which is the core of Constitutional Law today. I readily concede that our government is acting in an unconstitutional manner in many regards. The federal government is heavily involved in matters in which the Constitution gives it no jurisdiction. Education is the obvious example, but there are many others.

One could argue, for example, that the US Air Force is unconstitutional. Congress was given power to create an army and a navy, but no air force. Arguably, that's because the Founding Fathers were long dead before the first airplane was invented. But a very strict and limited reading of the document requires a constitutional amendment before the Air Force could be authorized.

Or, one could look to the principles laid down in the Constitution and come to the very reasonable conclusion that the intent was to vest the power to authorize armed forces of any nature in the legislative branch. But that requires more than understanding the plain intent of the words in the document.

I love Constitutional Law. I don't always agree with how courts construe the intent, but the debate is always fascinating.

544 posted on 07/03/2003 7:33:58 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: FreeLibertarian
"If you had taken the time to read and understand the context of the post you wouldn't look like such an ignoramus but lacking that degree of integrity on your part all I can suggest is that you butt out."

This was your entire statement: "Just worship someplace other than public buildings and there will be no problems". ~ Hard to take that out of context when it wasn't put into any context. My sincere apologies to you if you were being sarcastic or playing devil's advocate. Some people write "sarcasm off" after such a statement, to let others know their intent. Again, I apologize to you if your intent was sarcasm.

545 posted on 07/03/2003 7:35:11 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

Comment #546 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog Gone
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution not merely authorizes, but requires, the federal government to keep the country safe. Combined with the necessary&proper clause, an air force is easily within the purview of its authorized powers.

It's a really a red herring to talk about "strict" readings of the Constitution. The issue is honest readings. It's like I said in my other posts - the purpose of the first amendment is to protect people's rights, not their sensibilities. When it talks about "no law", it's referring to laws - that is, official edicts that have real-world effects, such as benefits of some kind, or simple restriction of behavior. It requires a great deal of creative - that is to say, dishonest - interpretation to say it restricts government from making an expression, especially when the courts apply that interpretation in a highly selective manner.

547 posted on 07/03/2003 8:52:11 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I''m not trying to shut you up. Interesting, though how you change your statements to suit your purpose of the moment.

The following statements are for purposes of the thread. I don't care what you think or say about them, but they are in response to your comments.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in this opinion and is not a basis for the opinion. Since you haven't read it, you wouldn't know that. But you can't change the debate on this opinion by trying to make it about something that it is not.

You're take on the name calling is disingenuous. You made a comment about "godless amoral moron" judges. I responded that these three judges are good Christian Southern men. Your direct reply was "Which judges? Those who support killing babies?" What you were talking about is clear.

As far as the slavery issue, I was responding to your repeated statement that the U.S. Constitution is based entirely on moral absolutes that cannot be changed. That statement is only true is slavery is a moral absolute, which you apparently would agree is not the case.

Your statements about school prayer are inaccurate and misstate the law. Anyone can pray in any school. What upsets you is that they can't lead others in prayer, whether those others want to be lead or not.

548 posted on 07/03/2003 9:20:04 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: inquest
When it talks about "no law", it's referring to laws - that is, official edicts that have real-world effects, such as benefits of some kind, or simple restriction of behavior. It requires a great deal of creative - that is to say, dishonest - interpretation to say it restricts government from making an expression, especially when the courts apply that interpretation in a highly selective manner.

Judge Moore made that same argument, but the question has previously been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court.

Their logic is not hard to follow, even if you disagree with it. It goes something like this: If a law authorizing the government to do something is unconstitutional, then that same action by the government in the absence of such a law is also unconstitutional.

Would a law requiring the installation of Judge Moore's monument in that courthouse be unconstitutional?

549 posted on 07/03/2003 9:23:09 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I responded that these three judges are good Christian Southern men. Your direct reply was "Which judges? Those who support killing babies?" What you were talking about is clear.

Yeah, clear as mud in a liberal southern swamp. Notice I asked: "Which judges?" Provide the proof that I was talking about the three specific judges you mention. You built a phoney straw man here based on a phoney accusation about my comments. Before you accuse, you had better be sure your understanding of my position is clear, and it's quite obvious that you chose the understanding you WANTED to choose, not the actual one intended by me. Next time ask for clarification.

As far as the slavery issue, I was responding to your repeated statement that the U.S. Constitution is based entirely on moral absolutes that cannot be changed. That statement is only true is slavery is a moral absolute, which you apparently would agree is not the case.

Again, a straw man. Show me where I stated that the Constitution is based ENTIRELY on moral absolutes...put up the quote I made or be exposed as a false accuser.

Your statements about school prayer are inaccurate and misstate the law. Anyone can pray in any school. What upsets you is that they can't lead others in prayer, whether those others want to be lead or not.

Again, stop with your infernal straw men! Once again, I DIDN'T SAY that students couldn't pray! Read what I wrote again and again and just read the black letters this time. What I said was accurate - restricting prayer in ANY way is a suppression of free exercise clause. Read the clause over and over until you get it thru your head. Tell me what part of that simple straight-forward unambiguous clause you don't understand.

Finally, I AM STILL WAITING for your explanation as to why the courts didn't act before 1947 if this was a proper constitutional reading. So, I will say to you what you said to me: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. History is on my side, not yours, and if you want to continue this discussion, you will answer my question, and you will provide historical support for your answer. If you can't do that, then let the record show that you have no historical basis for your position - all you have is ideology - which doesn't count in constitutional law!

550 posted on 07/03/2003 10:05:31 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-630 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson