Posted on 09/30/2004 1:56:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Care to provide the Article and Section that's found in, or something to provide a context as to what Article and Section it's referring to?
I would expect the Court to strike down unconstitutional laws. They've done that recently, as you know.
I'm assuming those laws not struck down are constitutional.
Shame on you paulsen for using the words of Jefferson to defend your communitarian agenda.
We all 'know' old Tom. He was no commie.
I would expect the Court to strike down unconstitutional laws. They've done that recently, as you know.
I'm assuming those laws not struck down are constitutional.
Your 'assumption' is idiotic. -- Unless a law is challenged it cannot be "struck down".
Our whole government, courts included, is convinced that these socialistic schemes are the 'will of people', just like you communitarian's advocate & support.
What's the original intent of "unreasonable" to which you referred? And how does this original intent apply to the internet? Or planes? Or automobiles?
"Unreasonable" has to be defined by someone, tacticalogic and be applied to every citizen equally. Who defines it in your fantasy world? I really want to know.
Yes, the Constitution is a Living Document -- it may be changed via the amendment process. Aside from that, it is interpreted by the USSC.
What reference did I make to "unreasonable"? If there is anything in the writings of the founders, or from their contemporaries at the time of the writing of the Constitution that indicates the commonly understood meaning of the term "reasonable" is different than that commonly held today, then the meaning held by them at that time must be applied.
The Constitution is not a Living Document. The powers transferred to the federal government by the representatives of the States were fixed at the time of transfer. They can only be modified by amendment. They cannot be changed simply by re-defining the words in the document to have a meaning different than the meaning intended by the authors.
Geez, that's like arresting someone for DWI because they might cause an accident.
(Oh wait. We already do that, don't we?)
Hmmmm. I thought I read somewhere, some government study, that posters on FreeRepublic whose names begin with "B", are likely to commit a felony some time in the next five years. I wonder, should we arrest those people today for something they might do? You have to admit, we'd be a safer society.
(BTW, buying it supports making it. Merely viewing it has nothing to do with manufacture.)
If that's the case, then in this free republic there will be supporting evidence in the Constitution or the writings of it's authors, or we will have passed an amendment making it so.
It's very simple... exerice your religion in a manner that I am not subjected to supporting it financially. I don't care what religion you are, I don't care what you think spiritually in the slightest. Your personal beliefs are none of my business. They become my business when you advocate smearing your beliefs on public property. Don't you understand, I want no part of your spiritual life, that's between you and your god. I have a wonderful view of freedom. Clearly, the nation strongly supports separation of church and state, so in the end... the dreams of a Xtian theocracy that some here seem to advocate is spit in the wind.
Well, then I say to you drugs are illegal at the federal level -- that's the way we want it, in a free republic.
And you are wrong again. -- Congress has no enumerated Constitutional power to prohibit drugs.
A little porn's a good thing.
Tolerence goes both ways of course. I am discussing this with you aren't I? You aren't public, you are a citizen, and part of a body of public that constitute the public. YOU, alone, are not the public.
"Who the f*&@ are you? "
I am a citizen, guaranteed protection from your religion. Who are you?
No, the Ten Commandments don't make me uncomfortable. The question is; are you so weak in your personal beliefs that you have the need to constantly see them to keep yourself in line? If you don't view them when you walk into a courthouse, are you afraid you're going to have sex with your neighbors wife? Why are you so afraid of not seeing the commandemnts smeared upon the walls of our facilities?
Once again a communitarian boldly displays his true agenda.
How weird can you get paulsen?
I can't explain your email problem. I get next to no spam, and no pornographic spam. Maybe I just give my email address to more reputable sites? Who knows.
As for the signs, that's not forcing anything on you. I don't like soup, I don't consider it really food (it's a beverage), however Campbells doesn't force soup on me by advertising it. That's preposterous.
Tell me, were we a tyrannical and oppressive society when such things were not permitted? What do you tell your kids when they ask you what a "sex toy" is?
Yes, yes we were a tyranical and opprossive society. Ask Nabokov, Metalious, Griffin et al, or a host of screenwriters, playwrights, directors and producers who's artistic expressions weren't merely oppressed, but shackled. I'm silly, I believe in this ideal about about the free expression of ideas. A radical I'm sure.
I would tell my child what a sex toy was if one of them were to ask. I wouldn't go into graphic detail, but I'd have no problem telling either on that it was another name for sexual aid, and some adults, often the disabled incorporate them in adult relationships.
I don't expect you to support it financially. Placing a Nativity scene in front of City Hall or in the town square requires no money from you.
All it requires from you is tolerance, something of which you're in short supply. The space belongs to the public, not to you.
"Clearly, the nation strongly supports separation of church and state,"
Uh-huh. When was the last time Congress used their constitutional power to tell the federal courts to butt out of anything, much less a CHRISTian issue like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
No, the liberals, the USSC, the ACLU, and your buddy Michael Newdow strongly supports that nebulous concept called the "separation of church and state". Truth be told, they support the separation of God from America.
Really? So the Supreme Court threw out the law? When did that happen?
When did the Supreme Court enumerate and transfer State powers to the Federal government?
Ooh, like with bodyguards carrying guns and everything? Watch out! Whew! Almost got hit by robertpaulsen's religion -- that was a close one.
As written by the Founding Fathers, you were guaranteed two things when it came to religion.
1) Congress was forbidden from creating a national religion. If the states wished to create, or continue with, a state-sponsored and state-funded religion, that was hunky dory with the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As proof, they affixed their signatures to those documents.
2) Congress was forbidden from making any law which prohibited the free exercise of an individual's religion. The states, however, were free to do so.
Other than the above constitutional protections, I have no idea what you mean when you say that you are "guaranteed protection from my religion". And I'm not about to guess.
"No, the Ten Commandments don't make me uncomfortable."
Yes, the Ten Commandments do make you uncomfortable. Otherwise, you'd look upon them as harmless symbol of the Christian principles upon which this country was founded.
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.