CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS

“I'm not going to have a tit for tat with somebody who doesn't recognize the U.S. Constitution as law without some kind of precedence of a court giving a ruling.

That kind of thinking is what has led to the moronic belief that the founders intended for there to be separation of church and state. They not only did not believe that as evidenced by their writings, but they did not put that in the constitution, nor did they demonstrate that was their belief by their actions. That phrase came from an out of context reference to a letter to a church in actually DEFENDING the freedoms of the church, and subsequently used as a precedence in many cases throughout our land.

I don't subscribe to your line of thinking. I think it's faulty to the core.
last edited: 10/29/09 11:14:32 AM�
HighPlainsDrifter
11:13:28 AM
10/29/09



I expect more out of you.

But then again, I didn't realize you were more learned than the combined brain power of the entire history of the US Supreme Court.

I am not, and do not claim to be a Constitutional scholar. However, it is clear to me that you have little or no concept of what is, or is not, "unconstitutional".
last edited: 10/29/09 11:21:39 AM”

“You're right, you are not a constitutional scholar.”

“And, I am also correct that you don't have a clue.”

“chili36, you can change my mind if you can convince me that precedent is justified in the "separation of church and state" cases.

Show me that the U.S. Constitution says or even pretends to hint that congress and religion must be separate. It DOES say that congress cannot establish a religion. But the founders had ALWAYS integrated religion, and even religious ceremony, into their daily and public lives. I would be amazed if you could demonstrate otherwise. What we have here is a case of legislation from the BENCH, not from the legislatures. Something lawyers often have a difficult time understanding.

executive
legislative
judicial”

“http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.”

“There is your precedence.

Precedence was IGNORED by lawyers and judges and people like you.”

“Over many years and many cases mainly involving religion in public schools, the Supreme Court has developed three "tests" to be applied to religious practices for determining their constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.

The Lemon Test

Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.

The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion.

The Coercion Test

Based on the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 the religious practice is examined to see to what extent, if any, pressure is applied to force or coerce individuals to participate.

The Court has defined that "Unconstitutional coercion occurs when: (1) the government directs (2) a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors."

The Endorsement Test

Finally, drawing from the 1989 case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, the practice is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses religion by conveying "a message that religion is 'favored,' 'preferred,' or 'promoted' over other beliefs."



Now, is the Supreme Court wrong...or are you wrong?”

“I've already told you who I believe is wrong.

I asked you if the precedent was justified. Your post has nothing to do with that.

We have a basic fundamental constitutional right to practice freedom of religion - not freedom FROM religion.”

“Our Constituional Rights are as defined above.”

“says you - in case you hadn't noticed, there is a growing movement of people who disagree and are not happy with this "living document" crap”

“Thanksfully, we have an educated supreme court system in place to interpret the consitution and not some puritanical mob.”

“I am guessing the term 'overturned" never entered into your head?”

“Thanksfully

You're just making up words now.”

“Educated people disagree, and have alternative motives and biases.

The founding fathers were clear.

I have shown you one letter by Jefferson that has CLEARLY been misconstrued to change the law of the land - by the "educated" supreme court system.”

“Thank you, grammar nanny.”

“in "separation of church and state" news, this from today ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570308,00.html”

“�says you - in case you hadn't noticed, there is a growing movement of people who disagree and are not happy with this "living document" crap�
HighPlainsDrifter
12:27:33 PM
10/29/09

Those are not my decision, HPD. They are Supreme Court decisions.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the sole authority to determine what is, or is not, Constitutional.

You, and everyone else who disagree with those decisions, have a Contitutionally protected right to voice your opinion. However, whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the Constitution and that interpretation will, in fact, determine what your protected rights are.
last edited: 10/29/09 12:55:18 PM”

“They are Supreme Court decisions.

EXACTLY!

However, whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the Constitution and that interpretation will, in fact, determine what your protected rights are.

That is NOT in fact, fact. You are thinking the same way King George did.”

“HPD. Actually the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the cases brought to them and by fiat they will legislate from the Bench (not the design of the founders).

NOW the Supreme Court has made determinations that were NOT enforced....LOL great historical perspective.”

“Usually, you are way sharper than you seem to be today.

Believe it or not, you just can't decide how you want to interpret the U.S. Constitution and then make it "your inalienable right" to have it that way.

Neither you, nor anyone else, is, or should be allowed to be, above the law.”

“NOW the Supreme Court has made determinations that were NOT enforced....LOL great historical perspective.�
theXL400
1:42:27 PM
10/29/09

Absolutely! The Cherokee's rights were protected by the US Supreme Court and Jackson ignored it and refused to enforce the decision.”

“Chili...we had a guy years ago in Savannah who did that....LOL he determined he did not have to obey certain "local and state laws" because the Constitution overruled it.

UM yeah...didn't work out too well.”

“All of the folks who claim an income tax is unconstituional and they don't have to pay it get a lesson too.”

“Neither you, nor anyone else, is, or should be allowed to be, above the law.”
chili36
1:43:57 PM
10/29/09

Same goes for the Supreme Court. They are also not above the law. It is our duty as citizens to keep it that way. THEY are BOUND by the laws of the Constitution, and when they violate that restriction, it is time to rebel. People are getting fed up. Take note, what I tell you is fact. People aren't going to take the re-writing of the constitution for much longer. At some point, the dam will break.”

“Same goes for the Supreme Court. They are also not above the law. It is our duty as citizens to keep it that way. THEY are BOUND by the laws of the Constitution, and when they violate that restriction, it is time to rebel. People are getting fed up. Take note, what I tell you is fact. People aren't going to take the re-writing of the constitution for much longer. At some point, the dam will break.�
HighPlainsDrifter
1:54:27 PM
10/29/09


What I hear you saying is that you want it your way or no way, screw everyone else.”

“Well chili, that isn't what I said, so maybe you should buy some q-tips. I want it the way the founder's intended, as do the millions of Americans who believe like I do. There is no such thing as 'separation of church and state' in the constitution. Period. It was never the intention that citizens cannot incorporate their religion into their actions, whether they have no government affiliation, work for local, state or federal government, or at the local library.

It's a made-up concept BY the Supreme Court and it is unconstitutional.”

“


I don't get to slap this one up nearly enough.

....and Fox sucks donkey balls... along with all its terminally ignorant fans.

”

“the way the founder's (sic) intended, eh? So, when are we bringing back slavery and reducing women to second-class citizens? After all, our founder's (sic) are completely infallible”

“Poor little t*ltypoo.”

“I might add, many of our founder's (sic) thought religion was a complete travesty... so at least they were correct on one front
last edited: 10/29/09 2:40:04 PM”

“You forgot the period at the end of your sentence.”

“all day long people use incorrect grammar on here, then when the libs feel cornered, they break out the grammar card

LOL!”

“well, I also broke out the "wanting things to be the way the almighty founders intended" is sheer idiocy card too... funny you ignored that though”

“because you're not worth arguing with - especially since we already covered some of your argument the other day”

“Yeah, that's probably it.

Or maybe because your wish to run the country like its founders intended is so stunningly full of holes that you'd just look like a moron (again). Perhaps I'd embarass you so badly that you'd have no other way to save face other than fake your own death to see what good comments people left in memory, then disappear for a month or two before returning under another name and vehemently denying you're the same person until you're completely backed against a wall, at which point you admit it pretend the rest of it never happened...

nah, that can't possibly be it
last edited: 10/29/09 2:49:05 PM”

“so who is winning this argument?”

“we'll have to go to noncon's scorecard for that. I know I'm at least securely ahead of Y2 with his negavite eleventy-jillion points.”

“I want it the way the founder's intended, as do the millions of Americans who believe like I do. There is no such thing as 'separation of church and state' in the constitution. Period. It was never the intention that citizens cannot incorporate their religion into their actions, whether they have no government affiliation, work for local, state or federal government, or at the local library.

It's a made-up concept BY the Supreme Court and it is unconstitutional.�HighPlainsDrifter
2:22:32 PM
10/29/09

In other words, if the Supreme Court, who has the sole authority to interpret the Contstituion, doesn't do it your way, it is Unconstitutional.

Well, hell, if they don't do it my way, it ought to be unconstituional as well.

Or Tilt's way, or MarkO's way...or Stovie's way....

Holy cow, what a concept. Thank God and all things Holy that that is not the way it is.”

“you're right pepsiformosa, I suppose, if you want to be. I'm not sure if those words were supposed to somehow make me sad, or what. Kind of strange really. Your version of reality is entertaining to you at least. That's a positive.”

“I get your point chili, but what I will not put up with, nor will millions of others, is this "redefining" of very simple concepts. Instead of debating the issue, which I gave plenty of background information on regarding how the "church and state" decision is just plain WRONG, you are diverting attention away from ANOTHER responsibility of the Supreme Court, which is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. Unless they make a NEW law, as an amendment, they cannot rewrite the meaning of existing law. This is not an interpretation issue, this is REDEFINING MEANINGS.

They MADE STUFF UP regarding the church and state issue. If you don't believe me, then tell me how YOU interpret that letter. They do NOT have the power to MAKE law, only to UPHOLD law. THAT is what they are constitutionally allowed to do.

When they STOP doing that, and redefine law, they are breaking the law, and as far as I am concerned, and many many others, they are no longer in charge.

You are skirting around my key arguments and they cannot be avoided in this discussion. Otherwise, you might as well continue incorrectly "hearing" me, and talk to yourself.”

“"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It's in the 1st ammendment. Maybe you didn't read that far.”

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

-Jefferson

does he qualify as a founding father?”

“I am not skirting anything. It is clear you have no concept of the holding in Marbury v. Madison.

The Supreme Court, can, and will redefine the law.

You think "separate but equal" shouldn't have been redefined? The original framers of our Constitution owned slaves. The thought is was pefectly legal AND moral! Early Court decisions (and certainly the framer's position) was that the Constitution didn't even apply to them.

Thank God for the United States Supreme Court AND the decision that REDEFINED that segregation was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Your position states emphatically that they should NOT be able to do that. You're entire arguement fails in light of that one issue (slavery/segregation). You want more? I can dish them out as long as you care to listen.
last edited: 10/29/09 3:20:41 PM”

“Chili, his back is to the wall. usually this is where he decides that he no longer wants to "lower himself" to debate with you”

“Now we get to it. You do want to discard the constitution, on the basis that the framer's owned slaves. I already said that if a law needs changed, we need to amend it (the constitution), otherwise, it is not up to the supreme court to create or redefine existing law. It is their job to uphold it.”

“and, YOUR court case did not allow them to disallow the constitution, only to uphold it!”

“They really should change the name from "Fox" to "Angry White Boys' News"”

“Disgraced NYTer Jayson Blair to Address Journalism Ethics Institute...

*snicker*”

“What sarge wants is for all decisions to support his belief.

Those that don't are "unconstitutional". Never mind the fact that the constitution provides for the SC to interpret the constitution.

Easy fix for you sarge. Just add an amendment giving you complete control.”