Safeguard the courts

Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 19. 1981

[tpaine]

And for over 200 years, the entire country has been wrong about marriage. So says that paragon of conservative virtue, tpaine. Some conservative.

Nope, you invented that 'saying', Willy.
-- And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway.. Put your big mouth on the line. Make your accusation.

I'll make my accusation simple. You are not conservative.

Yep, that's 'simple', in the idiotic sense .
Backatcha, -- you don't honor our constitution, - as you want to change it.

Sorry tpaine, too cute by half. I want to follow the proscribed method for enacting a change to the standards of our society- following the constitution as written by the founders.

We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any..

You want to revel in the changes 'interpreted' by the SCOTUS in Lawrence and the Massachusettes Supreme Court. I want to conserve what has been for over 200 years. You want what you always want, which is the erosion of society in the name of a sort of liberty which is really the lack of freedom for people to arrange their communities as they see fit.

You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.

--Back up your bull or take your flaming BS to the backroom where it belongs.

[William McKinley]

tpaine: And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway

tpaine: The imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges. Not constitutional.

McKinley: Prevent the judges from doing so by using the methods delineated in article V. Constitutional.

tpaine: Marriage should be whoever wants to be married. Not conservative.

McKinley: Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been. Conservative.

We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any..

We didn't before. We do now, thanks to some judges in Massachusettes.

You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.

Nope. You are opposing a constitutional amendment, which means you want the status quo. The status quo right now is that liberal activist judges in one state can impose on the entire nation a revised standard of marriage. That is not constitutional, but the paragon of constitutional conservatism is fine with this because it suits his whims of not having any standards for marriage, a position which is not conservative.

Back up your bull or take your flaming BS to the backroom where it belongs

Why should this be taken to the backroom? I have made a single 'accusation' and did so at your demand- that you are not conservative. This is not a flame. It is a clear conclusion based on the postions you take.

[tpaine]

I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway

tpaine: The imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges. Not constitutional.

I didn't write that line. You're quite crazy, & lying, to try to tag it as mine.

McKinley: Prevent the judges from doing so by using the methods delineated in article V. Constitutional.

Not needed. Those judges 'rulings' are unconstitutional and can be ignored.

tpaine: Marriage should be whoever wants to be married. Not conservative.

I didn't write that line. You're crazy, & lying to tag it as mine.

McKinley: Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been. Conservative.

My position also, as per my last post.
We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any.. - Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been.

We didn't before. We do now, thanks to some judges in Massachusettes.

Those judges are as crazy as you. they want unconstitutional changes.
You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.

Nope. You are opposing a constitutional amendment,

Yep, an unneeded amendment that gives government power in an area reserved to the people.

which means you want the status quo. The status quo right now is that liberal activist judges in one state can impose on the entire nation a revised standard of marriage.

Hype. They don't have that power, & never have had. You've been duped, and are following big brothers line that we must change the constitution in order to 'save' it. -- Not true, we must change our political system to save the constitution..

That is not constitutional, but the paragon of constitutional conservatism is fine with this because it suits his whims of not having any standards for marriage, a position which is not conservative.

Government 'standards' for religious ceremonies like marriage are a perversion of our principles of individual liberty. Just as is said in the article:

"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor," commented Mr. Cox.

Does this not get to the nub of the controversy -- the protection of minorities against majority rule?
A suppression of minority rights by the majorities of the moment is precisely what the Constitution -- and judicial review -- is meant to limit. Some militant groups in effect want to force all Americans into accepting a rigid set of beliefs on abortion, school prayer, and other social issues ---

[Jim Noble]

Congress not only has the right to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all inferior Article III courts-it also has the responsibility to do so.

This is the plain meaning of Art.III, s.2.

[Jim Noble]

Imagine, if you will, that each state were given sole authority to decide what the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment meant. It is conceivable that laws in Mormon Utah, Roman Catholic Rhode Island, and Baptist Georgia, say, might well break down the wall of separation of church and state so carefully preserved by the US Supreme Court

And thereby restore the original, correct meaning and intent of the First Amendment.

[tpaine]

"Imagine, if you will, that each state were given sole authority to decide what the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment meant.
It is conceivable that laws in Mormon Utah, Roman Catholic Rhode Island, and Baptist Georgia, say, might well break down the wall of separation of church and state so carefully preserved by the US Supreme Court"

And thereby restore the original, correct meaning and intent of the First Amendment

"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor" ---

-- "A suppression of minority rights by the majorities of the moment is precisely what the Constitution is meant to limit."

[Jim Noble]

"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor" --- -- "A suppression of minority rights by the majorities of the moment is precisely what the Constitution is meant to limit."

That is entirely correct, except that state nonestablishment of religion is not an individual liberty that the Constitution was meant to protect.

Establishment of a religion by a State violates no one's rights and impairs no one's liberties.

Congress cannot establish a national religion-that's all.

[tpaine]

Jim Noble wrote:
Establishment of a religion by a State violates no one's rights and impairs no one's liberties.

______________________________________


What purpose would it serve?
Why do you want an authorized State religion?

[tpaine]

[Rush] Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085272/posts

[William McKinley]

I didn't write that line. You're quite crazy, & lying, to try to tag it as mine.

Now that would be a personal attack. A rather lame one, but at least you are trying.

There are two options. Either an amendment, or the imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges.

It is an either/or.

You oppose an amendment, and without the amendment you get that imposition.

You did not write the line, but it flows directly from the stance you are taken.

[Jim Noble]

What purpose would it serve? Why do you want an authorized State religion?

I don't.

I only said, it is not unconstitutional.

[tpaine]

tpaine: The imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges. Not constitutional.

I didn't write that line. You're quite crazy, & lying, -- to try to tag it as mine.

You did not write the line, but it flows directly from the stance you are taken.

Thanks for admitting that you were quite crazy, & lying, to try to tag it as mine.

Now that would be a personal attack.

A lame remark which has no bearing, seeing you initiated the 'attacking' behavior.

[tpaine]

What purpose would it serve? Why do you want an authorized State religion?

I don't. I only said, it is not unconstitutional.

Specious.. -- Favoring one State religion would place all others in disfavored positions, which would be unconstitutional.

[William McKinley]

I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form.

I have pointed out the inconvenient, for you, truth that you are not a conservative.

And as for who is truthful, and who is not, I am more than comfortable with people reading this thread and coming to their own conclusions.

[Jim Noble]

Favoring one State religion would place all others in disfavored positions, which would be unconstitutional

Big word, "unconstitutional".

Why?

[tpaine]

"Equal protection under the laws"..

[tpaine]

You've been irrationally claiming I'm not a conservative, and passed off your opinions as my words in a lying attempt to 'prove' your claim..

As you say, anyone can read our posts to see the truth.. -- Which is fine with me..

[Jim Noble]

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws-Amendment XIV

How would a State establishment of religion violate this Amendment?

[tpaine]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" -Amendment XIV

How would a State establishment of religion violate this Amendment?

The favoring of a State religions 'establishments', - by law, -- would place all other religions precepts/dogmas in less favored positions, thus denying any persons not favored members the equal protection of the law.

State religions were & are a very divisive concept, much hated by many of the founders, and wisely allowed to fade away.