Posted on 06/14/2004 7:25:52 AM PDT by I still care
Just a breaking news bar - the court has thrown out Newdows case on a technicality. Score one for the pledge.
Yes....I think the Judges for life thingie is a bit flawed unless they were all Scalias..lol
The difference in our statements is basically the word HARD. They got slapped silly hard. Standing is something a trial judge should be able to figure out, but a U. S. Appeals Court? Sheesh.
Fox Really Blew Chunks the Night the Bush v Florida Decision ......They had their freakin "B" team on the Set....Then we had to deal with Rita Cosby proclaim "A Huge Victory for Al Gore"
Ugh!
You are at once an idealistic and sentimental, yet cynical man, John. So am I. That is why we get along so well. :)
After listening to him rave in Hannity today, I agree that he is a lunatic. The problem is that many members of the federal judiciary share his delusions. Levin kept pointing out how the guy kept bringing in mypotheticals and ignoring the facts. But our courts are filled with judges who accept these hypotheticals as fact.
I don't believe the court had any choice but to rule as it did today. But the issue will rise again, filed by a Newdow clone with an itchy trigger finger and God in his crosshairs. And when the case is finally heard, it will be interesting to see how O’Connor, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, or Stevens (or a combination of the above judicial tyrants) borrow excerpts from the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, or legal precedents from Mauritanian law to remove any mention of God from the American pledge.
P.S. I have beautiful framed copy of the twenty-third Psalm above my desk in my municipal building office. Back in April, for the first time in the twenty-one years that I have been in my position, a township resident who came in to talk with me mentioned (in a courteous way) that he did not believe that such a ‘religious text’ belonged in an office in a government building. We spent a good twenty minutes discussing the issue (during which I attempted to inform him about the Christian underpinnings upon which this country was founded, that I was not foisting my religion on anyone else, and the fact that the Constitutional requirement for separation of church and state is a figment of the leftist, secular humanist imagination). He was not convinced. I braced myself for the receipt of an official complaint, but so far (two months later) no sign of one. I figure either I did plant a seed in at least semi-fertile soil or he decided it wasn’t worth the hassle (I’m placing heavy odds on the latter).
~ joanie
Note that your list begins, "that among these are...", so no, that's not the full list. Others remain unenumerated.
Actually, I didn't post that quote, however I concur with your conclusion.
And that's ignoring other objections that you are citing the Declaration not the Constitution, and that these listed rights are extremely broad and may contain many things within them.
Yes, however I was simply stating that the right to Life was enumerated in the D-of-I, which would be a implied subset of the unenumerated rights implied in B-of-R's #9.
If there is any good that comes from the millions of abortions in this country, it is "Pro-Choicers" are killing off their own future base.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's simply unjust how "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." is used by the courts to suppress all sorts of religious expression, especially in spite of the 9th.
The penumbra; the penumbra!
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.