Posted on 01/29/2004 4:07:39 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie
Nobody watched it. And, nobody will watch it, if "somebody" brings it back.
Disagree. The phrase refers to making one religion "legal", while any other religion would be outlawed or barred. The Founders were trying to avoid the religous purges that occurred in England (like Bloody Mary), and I believe were talking about Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Baptists, etc.
No, they were trying to avoid any more state sponsored religions by forbidding new laws to be made 'respecting' the principles of other religions. - It worked, - state religions died away..
Applying that today, I don't believe that the Founders would have a problem witha 10 Commandments monument on city or county property, or within a county/district courthouse.
They wanted our various levels of government to be neutral to specific religions, as is clear by the 'no religious test for office' part of Art VI..
With regard to the 10th Amendment, I know you know that the purpose of the Constitution and the initial amendments were designed to limit the power of the federal government.
Why do you ignore the supremacy clause? It clearly limits state power. States are bound by it to support our BOR's.
I doubt that the people who implemented the 14th Amendment, which was to redress slavery issues primarily, would appreciate the fact that it was used to apply the first 8 Amendments in toto to every state legislature.
Read the ratification arguments from 1868.. Much of the debate was over the violation of ex-slaves RKBA's..
It's a dirty job, but someone has to drag FR's bot fraternity towards reality. PS I really enjoyed that movie they made about you.
Like the amnesty?
Jack, if you were President now, wouldn't you wonder why the Dem candidates are deathly quiet over your domestic policy, and are reserving their fire for Iraq?
That's the sixty-four dollar question, Joe. If grassroots discontent won't prompt a rethink by this President, our best hope is some conservative with cred becoming a thorn in his side in the runup to November. I note that Tancredo won't be silenced. Who else? We need a Buchanan/Keyes/McClintock type to surface, and get GWB back on the rails. Otherwise, any commitment he makes during the campaign will be have a 'no new taxes'-type credibility gap.
If you're Dick Morris, maybe.
I prefer to give garlands to those who actually accomplish something. If Dr Keyes went on Leno with a saxophone and Ray-bans, you'd be gushing, mate.
A tiny difference. A negligible difference.
Trust you, to focus on it, to the exclusion of the rest of the speech. Is it physically possible for you to give credit to anyone for anything, TP?
2) The placing of the 10 Commandments seems to me to be vastly different than taking a loyalty oath to any one religion. Maybe a big city like Chicago or Los Angeles, where they have a diverse citizenship, would for political purposes not want to place such monuments on city property, but if those cities wanted to place one there, that's not a constitutional problem unless they force people to conform. That's where I have a problem with modern constitutional law in this area - it seems to me that the protection is to ensure that certain religions are not prohibited and/or people are forced to conform to one particular religion. The mere display of one religion on public property does not appear to be either situation. If people are unhappy, they can vote these people out of office, keeping it a political problem. I find it extremely silly that the ACLU is going to court to force the removal of 10 Commandments displays in places where they've sat for 70+ years. Since most of these lawsuits have occurred within the past 20 years, does this mean we were living in an unconstitutional environment for over 200 years? I don't think so.
3) The Supremacy Clause was designed to ensure that the federal court system would trump state court and legislative systems when they violated the federal BOR. I should have been more specific in my comment - the 10th Amendment was to express that federal power was confined to only those things expressly granted to Congress, et. al, in the Constitution, and what was not expressly granted to them was reserved to the states. While the 14th Amendment expanded on those powers, I do not believe that the intent was to expand them to the point of control over the states that exists today.
4) Thanks to the reference to the ratification arguments - will look at them. Historical context is completely ignored when discussing these types of issues today (which I am admittedly guilty of as well).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
In removing the Ten Commandments from public property, the state is suppressing the practice of Christianity. While that may satisfy an extended view of the Establishment Clause, it clearly VIOLATES the Prohibition Clause.
Furthermore, as Dr. Keyes points out, the First Amendment applies only to CONGRESS. The amendment doesn't state "No governmental body shall ..." It simply states "Congress."
Great post, tpaine, but take it easy on Ambassador Keyes. He doesn't pretend to know much about the Constitution. His schtick is to pretend that it always conforms to the conclusions he comes to on his own. ;-)
I resent your implication that the current domestic policy belongs to George Bush. It's more like the DNC's.
Except that Bush increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Domestically, what would be different if Al Gore had won the coin toss in Florida?
Hmmmm. That's a tough one. Can I get back to you?
Please. As if we need some stone monument in a Govt building to represent God or we are "selling our souls".
Sound like idolatry to me.
I think Thomas Moore presented a poor example of the Christian faith over his contentious posturing over a piece of stone.
I agree with you.
I watched Keyes vs. Dirshbag at W&J college debate. Alan had the athiest on the run. Was fun though.
Alan Keyes is just a class person, period.
Too bad he doesn't seem to be able to get to another step. I don't think he cares.
That's true. He has a serious ego too, and tends to get pushy when things don't go his way.
But I was blessed to hear him give a speech in a small group - about 50 people - a few years ago. Possibly the finest speech I have ever heard. He spoke for an hour straight with no notes, and held his train of thought flawlessly throughout. There is probably no one on the American scene today with that kind of mind and comunnicative ability.
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.