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

Skip to comments.

Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy
World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew

It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.

Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.

If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.

In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:

1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.

As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.

As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.

Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.

Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.

The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: assholethread; atheism; church; creationism; crevolist; education; evoultionism; firstamendment; religiousfreedom; schoolchoice; schools; secularhumanism; state; vouchers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-253 next last
To: jwalsh07
"Um, and when we enter into a contract and I take your money without fulfilling the my side of the contract becuase our guns are bigger than yours, then what?"

Then it is the legitimate power of government to enforce that contract (one of it's only legitimate powers). But the government does not have the authority to stop individuals from freely ENTERING INTO any contract as long as that contract does not infringe on someone else's rights to life, liberty, or property.

"Unfortunately, contracts in a libertarian world absent civil law are unenforceable except to the extent that my armory is bigger than yours."

The *libertarians are anarchists* is a straw man. I have not called for the elimination of all civil law, just civil law that has no legitimate authority. The enforcement of contracts and the protection of individuals from foreign and domestic threats to life, liberty, and property are the only legitimate functions of government.


"Marriage is and always has been in the USA the union of one man and one woman"

Tell that to the Mormons.

"Fine by me as long as you understand that marriage is a word with meaning. Doing an Orwell on it is no better than redefining is."

Marriage is not something the state has the authority to define.
151 posted on 06/05/2005 8:57:41 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
States cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Same principle, - neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such powers States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers..

Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic. Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. So your argument here is with yourself. Good luck.

Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.

Like I said, argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.

Reasonable regulations. I agree.

Right, so the states can regulate marriage.

Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.

Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male. Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage, if you insist on changing the meaning of words then lobby your legislature to do so. Here, I won't wish you luck.

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call ir April showers.

Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.

So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?

Certainly and since the definition of marriage since the founding of this country has been the union of one man and one woman, I think you've seen the light.

152 posted on 06/05/2005 8:58:22 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; jwalsh07
jwalsh slips up:

the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?


_____________________________________




Fully informed impartial juries of our peers are the designated 'arbiters' in our Republic, walsh. -- Not the government, as you advocate.

136 P_A_I


______________________________________



I have been arguing that it shouldn't be a matter of civil law at all.
-- It should be completely between the people entering into it.

138 CarolinaGuitarman



______________________________________



Yeah, I know how the ideal libertarian world would like to work.
Unfortunately, contracts in a libertarian world absent civil law are unenforceable except to the extent that my armory is bigger than yours.

jwalsh






Guitarman, note how walsh just ignores our comments and keeps insisting that disputes must be settled by force. -- And that government force is his preferred method.

We argue for a free republic, he argues for a government of force.
153 posted on 06/05/2005 9:03:17 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Then it is the legitimate power of government to enforce that contract (one of it's only legitimate powers).

:-} We've gone from no government involvement to some government involvement. That was quick.

But the government does not have the authority to stop individuals from freely ENTERING INTO any contract as long as that contract does not infringe on someone else's rights to life, liberty, or property.

Certainly they do. Can a 12 year old enter into a marriage contract, a work contract or any other contract? Of course the answer is no. Laws preclude it and those laws are made by legislatures so your statement fails with even the least of scrutiny.

The *libertarians are anarchists* is a straw man. I have not called for the elimination of all civil law, just civil law that has no legitimate authority.

You forgot to add, IYHO. But in America there are many opinions, you only get one vote. You don't get to pick and choose laws for the rest of us.

The enforcement of contracts and the protection of individuals from foreign and domestic threats to life, liberty, and property are the only legitimate functions of government.

In libertarinaville, in America it is different and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. States regualte marriage, that power is constitutionally granted and long standing in American jurisprudence. It simply is, to argue otherwise is simply a waste of time.

Tell that to the Mormons.

It was told to the Mormons by Abe Lincoln, they don't need to hear again at this late stage.

Marriage is not something the state has the authority to define.

Right, it is a word with meaning and you sure the hell don't have a right to redefine it. Glad we're clear on that.

154 posted on 06/05/2005 9:12:17 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Fully informed impartial juries of our peers are the designated 'arbiters' in our Republic, walsh. -- Not the government, as you advocate.

Right, and the arbiter that convenes the juries is who, the contractee with the biggest guns?

No, we have a Constitutional government that convenes juries, walsh. I suggest you do more study on how its supposed to operate.

Am I to understand that you an anarcho libertarian type?

From what I can see, you're virtually incapable of understanding me, or the Constitution I've pledged to support & defend.

155 posted on 06/05/2005 9:13:39 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

You can't even make a rational argument, Guitarman can. He's wrong but lucid, you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.


156 posted on 06/05/2005 9:13:52 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
I noticed that. Kind of like Sir Francis Dashboard, except one is arguing from religious might makes right and the other from a completely amoral might makes right. Jwalsh at least believes in some kind of right and wrong standard to live one's life, even if I disagree with his premises. Dashboard only believes in anatomy.
157 posted on 06/05/2005 9:18:24 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
jwalsh07:

Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.

States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers. --
--- they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.

Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic.

That's my point. - Thanks.

Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. -- argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.

Yep, we legislate under rule of constitutional law, not rules as decreed by politicians.

You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.

Reasonable regulations. I agree.

Right, so the states can regulate marriage.

Amazing, -- you got my point.

If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.

Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.

Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male.

So you claim, begging the question.

the Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage,

Yep, reasonable regulations.

The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.

They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.

There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call it April showers.

There you go 'boldly' contradicting yourself again. You've been arguing that you & Bruce can't contract to 'marry'.

Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.

Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.

I cite Article VI, wherein ALL officials in the US are sworn to support our Constitutional principles as the Law of the Land.

_______________________________________

jwalsh07 writes an aside:

You can't even make a rational argument, -- you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.

You just attempted above to refute my rational arguments. -- You failed. Get back to me when you gather the courage to try again.

158 posted on 06/05/2005 10:04:14 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.

Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.

(Words of another FR poster that apply directly to you...)


159 posted on 06/05/2005 11:29:34 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Your repeating yourself. And we are still laughing at you, little petty despot. :)


160 posted on 06/05/2005 11:32:52 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel. That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.


161 posted on 06/05/2005 11:36:00 AM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Go F--- yourself...


162 posted on 06/05/2005 1:56:06 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood


We will ALWAYS laugh at you :)


163 posted on 06/05/2005 1:59:59 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Dude: --" when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry."

Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

Torie wrote:
Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel.

Not novel at all. Justice Marshall first said as much in his 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion.

That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.

Exactly. The republic would fail if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed', for instance.
No matter how large a super majority passed such an 'amendment', millions of patriots would remain who would refuse to accept such an infringement on our liberty.

164 posted on 06/05/2005 2:23:43 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Go suck a shotgun...


165 posted on 06/05/2005 2:33:56 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Not novel at all. Justice Marshall first said as much in his 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion.

Here is the text of the opinion. Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste the language upon which you rely for your assertion?

166 posted on 06/05/2005 2:34:13 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!! Nobody will ever listen to you little fascist.


167 posted on 06/05/2005 2:38:39 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles.

Bullshirt...

168 posted on 06/05/2005 2:39:05 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I think there are a number of trolls here of late on FR... and two of them might be here... and it ain't you or I...


169 posted on 06/05/2005 2:41:17 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

LOL. What really worries me is that some here are really that confused and dense about it all.


170 posted on 06/05/2005 2:45:59 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.

Torie wrote:
Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel.

Not novel at all. Justice Marshall first said as much in his 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion.

Here is the text of the opinion. Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste the language upon which you rely for your assertion?

Marshall wrote: " -- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "

171 posted on 06/05/2005 2:47:32 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers.

Gay marriage is not "illegal," it just doesn't exist. You can't marry another man for the same reason you can't marry your dog, or marry a rock.

The fed's powers were delegated to them by the state. The state's powers were delegated to them by the people. In case you didn't notice, The American people overwhelmingly reject your libertarian faggotry, and have ratified constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the likes of you. It's too bad for you there are so few libertarians in America so you can't forcefully impose your degenerate immorality on the rest of the country.

172 posted on 06/05/2005 2:50:25 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
The question, whether an act

An act = statute, not a Constitutional amendment. The constitution is indeed supreme to statutes, and indeed when the constitution is in conflict with itself, some sections are indeed deemed by SCOTUS to trump others, such as the First Amendment. Indeed the Amendments all trump the original text. But what trumps everything is the most recently adopted amendment. It by definition is designed to trump any conflicting language. Are we making any progrsss here?

173 posted on 06/05/2005 2:52:34 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; Torie

" think there are a number of trolls here of late on FR"

That would be you Dashboard. :) Not Torie, who I may disagree with but who is at least civil and seems intent on having a discusion. And I am sure that Torie, unlike you, doesn't believe that morality is the invention of stupid religionists. Or that the only thing that makes an action right is brute force. When the going gets tough logically you resort to personal petty snipes. Because in your offline life nobody takes you seriously. They, like the rest of us, just laugh at you :)


174 posted on 06/05/2005 2:52:36 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
The troll here is proclaiming "bullshirt" to the words of Justice Marshall. Whatta clown.
175 posted on 06/05/2005 2:57:35 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Nobody on this planet except a sociopath can operate without accepting certain a priori moral precepts. I am not sure Dashwood would assert otherwise. If he does, then he is deluding himself, since he if a libertarian embraces a boatload of them.


176 posted on 06/05/2005 2:58:13 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Torie
LOL. What really worries me is that some here are really that confused and dense about it all.

You will love this...

The following was posted by another FReeper to some lunkhead and is going to be a standard format I am going to "steal," it applies so neatly to these two Bozos...

You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.

Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.

Is that a gas or what?

177 posted on 06/05/2005 3:11:42 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Torie; Sir Francis Dashwood; Tailgunner Joe
I've proved Marshalls point: -- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "

-- So now you want to argue about the fine points of language? Feel free to engage some of our resident experts on the creative use of words.

178 posted on 06/05/2005 3:15:37 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Nobody ever understands your schizophrenic ramblings. Fortunately no one else on the planet thinks the Constitution says what you imagine it does in your own little fantasy world.
179 posted on 06/05/2005 3:22:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
they are designed to be permanent. --

They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended. You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you? I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you. You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.

180 posted on 06/05/2005 3:24:11 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

He must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thank him for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thank him for voting for Bush.

Now he will go hit his bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while he still lives in his parents basement.


181 posted on 06/05/2005 3:28:56 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I; Sir Francis Dashwood
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) - The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated...

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall

182 posted on 06/05/2005 3:29:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Do you know what a decree is? Do you know who issues decrees?

Well, I'll tell you. Courts issues decrees and royalty isssues decrees. In this country at this time the only government entity that issues decrees and is both a court and royalty is SCOTUS.

And as I guy I know is wont to say:

There you have it.

183 posted on 06/05/2005 3:32:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Torie wrote;

That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.

Exactly. The republic would fail if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed', for instance.
No matter how large a super majority passed such an 'amendment', millions of patriots would remain who would refuse to accept such an infringement on our liberty.

-- what trumps everything is the most recently adopted amendment. It by definition is designed to trump any conflicting language.

You contend then that if a repeal of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it would be valid and "trump" our right to bear arms?

Are we making any progrsss here?

You are rapidly progressing on a path to putting your foot in mouth, imo. But hey, -- feel free to continue.

184 posted on 06/05/2005 3:34:37 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

And then we had the 14th amendment. Amendments matter, particularly if SCOTUS give them a robust scope in its decisions. The 14th amendment and the robust reading of the commerce clause has largely interred states rights. I don't mourn that much - indeed I don't mourn it a all (although I mourn the way the 14th amendment has struck down federal statutes outside the scope and reach or race issues). We are one nation, that will sink or swim together. There is no going back, practically or prudentially.


185 posted on 06/05/2005 3:35:54 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Torie

tpaine/P_A_I will explain to you that Marshall was wrong and the Bill of rights always applied to the states. You'll have to ask him if that means that the 14th amendment can or can't be repealed.


186 posted on 06/05/2005 3:38:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis. You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.


187 posted on 06/05/2005 3:39:24 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Tailgunner Joe wrote:

Nobody ever understands your schizophrenic ramblings. Fortunately no one else on the planet thinks the Constitution says what you imagine it does in your own little fantasy world. The American people overwhelmingly reject your libertarian faggotry, and have ratified constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the likes of you. It's too bad for you there are so few libertarians in America so you can't forcefully impose your degenerate immorality on the rest of the country.

Sure thing joe. Whatever you say.

188 posted on 06/05/2005 3:39:53 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

PAI is a recycled poster?


189 posted on 06/05/2005 3:41:18 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

No problem, pai, and while you libraltarians are still fighting the gubmint, we conservatives will be running it.


190 posted on 06/05/2005 3:42:25 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Torie

You don't recognize tpaine? His nauseating posting style is a dead giveaway as well as his intense nationalist anti-federalism.


191 posted on 06/05/2005 3:43:58 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I think you may be right. There are eerie echoes. :)


192 posted on 06/05/2005 3:44:35 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Marshalls point:

-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "

They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.

We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?

You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?

A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.

I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.

Marshall's words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.

You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.

It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.

193 posted on 06/05/2005 3:56:36 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis."

It already does. Our rights to life,liberty, and property precede the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant them to us; our rights as human beings are not just what is enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution banned all gun ownership, it would not change the fact I would have a right to own a gun. Or to free speech. Or Freedom of assembly. It would only mean that the government no longer recognized it and was sliding towards tyranny.

An amendment to the constitution declaring that marriage is only between a man and a woman might be considered constitutional. It wouldn't mean that it was a legitimate power of government though. No individual can claim as a right the initiation of force against someone. No legitimate government has the power to force someone to do something when it doesn't infringe on another person's rights to life, liberty, or property. Gay marriage does none of these things.

BTW, read Dashboard's profile page. It will tell you a lot about him. Then google his name to find out who he wanted to be associated with on this forum.
194 posted on 06/05/2005 4:01:06 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (There is a grandeur in this view of life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law. Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.


195 posted on 06/05/2005 4:02:55 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I can only attribute Marshall's opinion in Barron to a misguided effort to avert civil war.. -- Or to senility.

30 years after the brilliance he displayed in Marbury, he reversed himself in Barron. Sad case.
196 posted on 06/05/2005 4:03:22 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

If these matters cannot be resolved throught the rule of law, via the ballot box, the alternative is not a pleasant prospect. Fortunately most respect the result of the ballot box, and nobody is tampering with the civil right to participate in the public square in any meaningful sense. In the end, civil society only works, if the citizenry are civil minded. All the Constitutional paper in the world, however noble, will not substitute for the good habits and morals and willingness of the citizenry, to tolerate a pluralistic democratic governance.


197 posted on 06/05/2005 4:12:16 PM PDT by Torie (Constrain rogue state courts; repeal your state constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You contend then that if a repeal of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it would be valid and "trump" our right to bear arms?

If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis.

You contend then that we have no inalienable right to bear arms in our self defense?

You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.

"We" being who? -- And I am quite comfortable with the legal mechanics of our Constitution, which you admittedly are not.

198 posted on 06/05/2005 4:15:55 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The courts are a convoluted mess. I say we toss out all precedent cases and start over...


199 posted on 06/05/2005 4:26:34 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Marshalls point:

-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "

They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.

We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?

You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?

A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.

I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.

Marshalls words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.

You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.

It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.

You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law.

I do? Where do you get that odd idea?

Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.

Strange ideas you have for "public policy", torie. -- Claiming we can amend away our inalienable rights.

200 posted on 06/05/2005 4:27:33 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-253 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