Supreme Court appointments....

[ironglow]

Why is it that in recent Supreme court appointments seem to boil down to one major contention...the left's driving desire to " kill more pre-born, little boys and girls "...?

[Qtip]

It's because the liberals Democraps have latched onto this and "women's rights" as one of their major power bases. They have decieved many women into thinking that women's rights and abortion are one in the same. But as usual they are wrong. Voting, equal pay for equal work, etc., etc., are not the same issue as abortion. A human life is not lost when one of these other "rights" are exercised. The liberal Dems. are seeing some labor groups turn against them. They are watching legal groups forming to fight the ACLU(another base of power for them). They watched the Republicans take Congress and the Presidency and they still don't get the message. That is that they are losing their message. They stand for little, if anything; and fear becoming irrelevant. So they fight to keep abortion in hopes to fend off a possible domino effect. Hell, even Hillary Clinton is faking people into thinking that she is a "moderate" because she is sly enough (notice I didn't say smart) to know that left-wingers are losing out. The Dems of 40 to 50 years ago would look like conservatives today-that is how low they have stooped.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

[swiftman]

There is no law seperating church and state either, but you would not know by listening to a lot of law makers.

[ironglow]

Watched John Roberts being questioned by the senatorial "luminaries" today..
  Biden, Feinstein and the senate water safety expert, Teddy Kennedy looked like a bunch of intellectual puppies compared to Roberts...LOL

[dukkillr]

swiftman said:

There is no law seperating church and state either, but you would not know by listening to a lot of law makers.

The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[mjbgalt]

doesnt SEPARATE, just keeps the government from choosing one religion or another as the "sponsored" religion.

-Matt

[dukkillr]

It separates the government from any advocacy or criticism of any religion.  If it deals with religion, the government cannot be involved, except in a handful of circumstances.  Remember that the writers came from a Monarchy with a background of religous oppression.  There is a reason why they said what they did.

[mjbgalt]

i guess what i was trying to point out is that it isnt what most people assume it is. for instance it doesnt limit prayer in school and other things people often say about it.

however it DOES seem to limit the posting of the ten commandments in court buildings and other like situations.

i dont much care whats displayed in court as long as the judges are fair though lol.

-Matt

[unspellable]

Note very carefully that the 1st says "congress" shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.  Again, note "congress".  The federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter at the state, county, city, or school district level.  In fact, when they stick their oar in they are in violation of the constitution.

People forget the constitution was not written in legalize, it was written in plain English.  When it says congress it means congress.  When it says state it means state.  When it say people it means people.

[dukkillr]

You're simply wrong unspellable.  You're forgetting the spending clause and the general welfare clause.  Those two plus the 14th, in conjuction with the first amendment, are what causes federal Jurisdiction at all types of levels.

TM7: Believe it or not, men's reproductive rights have been improving.  One of the byproducts of woman's lib is that "Traditional Roles" is no longer an explanation for various family issues.  I would agree that men don't have the rights women do, but it is clearly getting better.

[unspellable]

The first amendment prohibits the congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion.  Period.  Therefore there can be no legitimate federal law concerning religion at the state or lower level.

This is a flat prohibition and over rides the general welfare clause as do the other limits on the federal government contained in the constitution.

Granted, the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are in practice used to justify all manner of constitutuional abuse, but only by contorting their wording totally out of all meaning and context as is done with other parts of the constitution.

It cannot be demonstrated that a plaque in a county courthouse constitutes interstate commerce ot that it has any significant adverse effect on the genral welfare.

It can be argued with some merit that the federal government tinkering with that plaque has an adverse effect on the general welfare.  And that can be argued without recourse to mentioning religion.

These clauses do not override any constitutional prohibitions on the federal govcernment as those prohibitions over ride all else.  The constitution was intended to be a set of chains to bind the government, not a justification of the government's powers be they legitimate or not.

The Bill of Rights in particular are flat prohibitions on the federal government, period.  No exceptions.  None.  Nada.

[Shorty]

How is it that Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, as senators sworn to uphold the constitution don't even know what it says?   :roll:
How is it that all of those citizens who elect those senators don't know what the constitution says?  :oops:
I'll tell you!  Those citizens care more about: football/baseball/basketball/NASCAR/hockey
Reality TV/ ad nauseum than how the government really is supposed to work.
They get all of their civics knowlege from the network news, which seems to think that the president is all-powerful and therefore all-to-blame.

[Qtip]

Well said Shorty. When I was in school we were taught how government works under the Constitution. Of course maybe they don't do that today in schools. We politicize everything and the blame-game seems to be the method of choice lately.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

[dukkillr]

Oh dear.  Shorty you're right, but it seems your statement is refering to some in this conversation.

unspellable, it's the 14th amendment that extends the due process requirements onto the states.  That, of course, means that the STATES are bound by all the requirements of constitution.  

Look, I personally don't understand what the fuss is about either.  I've got no problem with the statues or whatever, and I think the whole argument is sensationalistic.  Unfortunately your claim that only the Federal government is bound by the First amendment is wrong.  Quite frankly you should be glad you're wrong.  Think about what would happen if the states could talk all the rights you have away because they aren't bound by due process?

[unspellable]

I did not claim that the states are not bound by the first amendment.  I do claim that the first amendment itself states that only congress is bound by the establishment of religion clause.  Try reading it.  Secondly, if we were to apply it to the states and counties, do you know what "an establishment of religion" is?  It's not a plaque in a county courthouse.  

The other clauses in the first amendment apply to both the federal and lower levels of governemnt.  What does "due process" have to do with this?  That's not even under discussion here.

[Mikey]

Here's what I think - I think the dems and libs are very, very worried about what Bush's appointments will do to the nature of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years and that it will become a constitutionally conservative bench, which they don't like.

The dems and libs want to ask questions about the individual appointee's position on certain rulings so they can determine if that individual will vote in their direction.  They don't like people who won't address issues that might become court cases as they feel that level of integrity only serves the conservatives who don't swing to the left as O'Connor did.  The dems and libs want all their answers now so they can decide which way the court will go through their approval process.  They want to shape the court, they don't want the court to shape it's own future, and oours in the process.

Don't forget that the dems and libs are all about control - if they can control the appointments they can control the future and the populace.  If they don't get their appointments they lose control over the process, the determinations and their ability to enact and enforce laws that control the people, not let them live according to the Constitution.  

And Bush was thinkin' right when he pulled the nomination on his Associate Justice and nominated him for Chief Justice - that sort of locked the dems into an approval and they don't like it, which is why they were asking Roberts so many questions about specific issues - that he wouldn't answer as they might become issues for court determination.  

Our Constitution gives us incredible rights - the only time we actually lose those rights is when a left leaning court listens to the dem-lib movement and swings on that vote.  With Roberts as Chief Justice and hopefully another Constitutional Conservative to fill O'Connor's seat we should have a conservative, constitutionally oriented court that upholds our freedoms and makes standing decisions to protect our rights and our future as free citizens.  JMHO.  Mikey.

[FWiedner]

swiftman said:

There is no law seperating church and state either, but you would not know by listening to a lot of law makers.

The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

It means that the federal government cannot create, adopt, sponsor, or require adherance to, any state mandated religion.

This is in direct response to centuries of abuse inflicted on subjects of the crown by the Anglican church (The Church of England), and other historic abuses by Royalty and the Catholic church in other parts of Europe (i.e. Spain).

It doesn't mean anything more or anything less.  It doesn't suggest reading between lines that aren't there.

Those who say it does have an agenda that involves something other than protecting 1st Amendment rights.

.

[unspellable]

First, all persons have certain "inalianable rights".  These rights are not "given".  The Constitution is not there to "give" these rights, it is there to protect them.  For example, read the second amendment.  It does not bestow the right to bear arms, it restricts the government from "infringing upon" the pre-existing right.

The government has no rights whatsoever.   Hence it cannot give any rights.  Insofar as the government exercizes any powers, they do so with the permission of the people, it's the people who give the government powers, not the other way around.  I use the word "powers" because they are not rights of the government and are subject to revocation at the will of the people.

There are circumstances under which some 'rights" are given, for example I may give you property rights in a piece of land, either as a gift or in exchange for value, but I don't think that's what's under discussion here.

[dukkillr]

What does "due process" have to do with this? That's not even under discussion here.

read the 14th amendment.

The government has no rights whatsoever. Hence it cannot give any rights.

Maybe, but the government is tasked with the obligation to protect some of your rights.  For instance, who provides you with an attorney if you cannot afford one?  You have a right to an attorney, and the governmnet is tasked with protecting that right.

It means that the federal government cannot create, adopt, sponsor, or require adherance to, any state mandated religion.

Right, and the ruling is that having a religous symbol in a government building creates an "endorsement" or in your words, a sponsorship.

Look, I'm not saying I agree with the ruling, actually I don't, but you guys are distorting constitutional law.  All I'm trying to do is point out why the ruling is what it is.  I don't have an agenda.

[Arick the Red]

I would challenge anyone to find the phrase, "seperation of church and state" in the constitution.  It's not there.  It was however in a letter, I believe from Thomas Jefferson to a baptist? church somewhere in the South.  The letter he wrote was in response to a concern by that church on whether or not the new government in America would make one religion (basically back then the differences in religion were based on one movement believing something different than another movement on a specific biblical doctrine.........like baptism or membership) the "state" religion.  Like with the different religions established by the Kings and Queens in England.  One King wanted England to be Catholic, so England would be Catholic.  If one King wanted England to be Prostestant, England would be Protestant.  Henry VIII created his own church cause he was at odds with the Catholic church.  That's why so many people came to colonize America because they wanted to start over in a place where they wouldn't be persecuted for what they believe or what faith they shared.  The church that wrote Jefferson was worried that the Founding Fathers would rule or establish laws that would dominate America with Lutheran beliefs, or Quaker beliefs, or any beliefs from a certain religious sect.  That's what "seperation of church and state" is all about.  If you don't think that this country was founded on Christian values and morality, you need to open up a history book.  I think it is safe to say that almost all of the Founding Fathers were very devoted to some religious movement stemming from Christianity.  


In the pursuit of tolerance we have lost the value of truth.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it's right to push our values or morality on to another person.  They have the right to pray to any god they wish.  But there is one true God, I won't back down from that.

[unspellable]

<<The government has no rights whatsoever. Hence it cannot give any rights. >>

<Maybe, but the government is tasked with the obligation to protect some of your rights. For instance, who provides you with an attorney if you cannot afford one? You have a right to an attorney, and the governmnet is tasked with protecting that right.>

This is what I have said before.  the government has no "rights", it has only powers granted to it by the people for the protection of those rights the people have with or without the government.  That is its only just reason for existance, at least at the federal level.

<<It means that the federal government cannot create, adopt, sponsor, or require adherance to, any state mandated religion.>>  

<Right, and the ruling is that having a religous symbol in a government building creates an "endorsement" or in your words, a sponsorship.>

The 1st says congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.  "Establishment" has a very specific meaning here.  It means a state church such as England has.  Displaying the Ten Commandments in a state courthouse is not an establishment of religion, and the federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter at the state level.  Several of the original colonies were originally established with an official religion, the founding fathers did not wish to interfere with that, and that's why they placed the limitation on Congress and not on the states.  Also, it should be noted that while the supreme court may issue a ruling, that does not mean the ruling is necessarily correct.  On more than one occasion the court has reversed itself.  The constitution didn't change between one ruling and the other.

There has been a constant effort to twist the original meaning of the constitution to serve the ends of this or that group.  But if you are going to change the meaning according to the political winds of the day, why bother to have a written constitution.  The old Soviet Union had a wonderful constitution with all sorts of individual rights spelled out, but it wasn't worth the paper it was written on because the powers that were were constantly weasle wording their way around it.  To the detriment of almost everybody concerned.  I think this country is on the slippery slope leading to that situation.  Not every revolution happens over night or at the point of a gun.  Most revolutions in history have had negative consequences.

[dukkillr]

Unfortunately your opinion is not that of the Supreme Court, and thus isn't law.

[williamlayton]

Statesmanship=Supreme Court???
It seems to me that we have lost the art of statesmanship or we have no statesmen in this nation. All are polarized/connected/obligated to follow a creed/thought/line of thinking of oneside or the other.
Somewhere there used to be a group who would stand on the wording/meaning/defense of thought of the constitution above their own personal agenda or beliefs. Short definition= I may not agree with it, however; that is is the concept and if we want to change the concept it will be necessary to change the constitution by amendment.
Blessings

[FWiedner]

Unfortunately your opinion is not that of the Supreme Court, and thus isn't law.

Unfortunately, many of the opinions of the Supreme Court aren't the law either.  Just because they say it's law doesn't make it so.

Any decison of the court that defies or is abhorent to the Constitution and it's original intent is nullified at it's inception.  The fact that the Supremes mount and cast down judgement on the masses from atop someone's political bandwagon doesn't change that.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbitor in questions requiring interpretation of the Constitution.

.

[dukkillr]

God i love your rhetoric.  The consitution also rested with the Supreme Court, the power to interpret laws and the Constitution.  

I guess just because something is "law" as determined by our government and courts doesn't make it a "law" for you.  Ok, whatever suits you.

[unspellable]

The Constitution did NOT rest power to interpret the Constitution with the Supreme Court.  In fact that power was regarded as an open question when the Constitution was enacted and remained so for a few years until the Supreme Court assumed the power on its own initiative and established the precedent.

The fact that congress has passed a law or that the court has ruled favorably on it does not automatically make it legitimate.  That is why we had a Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary War, and an attempt in the constitution at protecting freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.  It is also why the Supreme Court justices do not serve for "life" but for good bahaviour.  They are subject to impeachment.  That means if the populace is sufficiently fed up with them, they can demand their removal.  So in the end we are back to all pwer belongs to the people and is only "loaned" to the government for the duration of its good behaviour.

Many of the atrocities that the Nazis and the Communists committed were "legal".  Does that make them legitimate?  Granting the courts the "right" to declare what the law was enabled them.

The Supreme Court has issued opinions that are 180 degrees opposed and mutually exclusive.  It's obvious that both opinions cannot be correct.

[magooch]

I just hope that Roberts is right with the Second Amendment.

[ironglow]

Common sense regards precedent...for 200 years our nation did just fine...prayers were said in schools, children were given free time during school hours to attend religious instruction. Churches and schools mixed their festivities and Christmas, Easter etc were celebrated by the schools.
   They even had Christmas and Easter holidays....
 
 In all that 200 years there was zero, zilch, nada..never any attempt by the US Congress to set up any official "state religion"...
   Congress NEVER even hinted that Methodism, Episcopalian, Catholic or Baptist should be the "state religion"..
 
    So why do we have all this uproar in the last 25 or so years ?

  It wasn't the Christians that started to destroy this precedent...wasn't the Congress that did it !

  In fact, back in the 1940s & 1950s I heard not one person complain about the situation
 
  Who were the troublemaking malcontents that started the stink ? Are they even worth listening to ?

    It took decent people, working hard for 200 years to build a great nation..

  It could possibly take just a minority of ill-willed, stubborn, selfish rabble just 25 or 30 years to destroy a great nation...

     They wrap themselves in THEIR interpretation of the Constitution and proceed to attempt to destroy the traditionally decent characteristics of this nation...and thereby, the nation itself..

[magooch]

In this day and age it might be prudent to keep religion in the background or to a minimum in public schools because of all the kooks around who would jump at the chance to try to promote their particular form of deviation, which they call a religion.  Personally, if I had any kids in school, I sure as hell wouldn't want some weirdo muslim fanatic, or devil worshipers having a go at my kids.

That said, I see nothing wrong with returning to the standards of passive toleration of our Christian traditions in public schools.  Prayer in school should probably be kept at a personal level, but recognizing Christmas and other such things is as much tradition as it is religious.  This countries roots are Christian and if that offends, or alienates some, that's tough.

[ironglow]

I'm with you on that magooch..I don't want any child to be forced to say a prayer...nor to I want any child to be forced to "shutup" when he/she starts to pray.
   I don't want Christianity to suppress other faiths, but it should be admitted that this is basically a Christian country, founded upon Christian principles...
  Anything less is promoting a lie...