Posted on 08/16/2004 3:15:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Interesting. I'm not aware of any religion that requires the posting of the TC or the Golden Rule in public schools.
AFAIK, there is nothing preventing the amendment of even the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment could be repealed.
There is also a provision in the Constitution that allows for a new constitutional convention and the drafting of a whole new constitution from scratch.
So what you are saying is that even though the courts took away the freedom to post them, it doesn't really matter because the religion doesn't require it. You seem to be saying that judicial activism is OK if you agree with the outcome.
No such right exists, and never has.
The nation has lost its spiritual history, which has been replaced by an Orwellian revisionist history (much the same one you propangandize).
Again, I'm not sure why you think there is such a right as "the right to be taught correct history in school."
The remainder of those rights lost include our right to raise our children in a moral society
How would one go about enforcing such a right?
the right to pray in public buildings and in public places
You can pray all you want in public buildings, unless your prayer is dusruptive (say, standing up and praying in the middle of a court proceeding). As for public places, nobody has ever been prevented from praying in a park, on the sidewalk or any other public place.
the right of our children to pray in school
Your kids still have that right.
and the right of our children to see constant instruction on how to be a good citizen.
Here, you seem to be asking that others be required to help you with turning your kids into good citizens. You have every right to turn your kids into good citizens, but there is no requirement that anyone help you in this task.
I guess these rights all exist in the penumbra of the Constitution.
I guess the court that banned VMI from saying a dinner prayer didn't get that message.
The courts have only taken away the right to post them in government buildings (and only in public places in government buildings- a judge could post them in his chambers, for example). You are free to post them anywhere on private property, so your claim that courts have taken this right away is silly.
You seem to be saying that judicial activism is OK if you agree with the outcome.
There is no judicial activism here. Courts have simply ruled that you cannot use public money or public property to advance your personal religion. Nobody is prevented from posting the TC to their heart's content so long as they do not use government resources for doing so.
For your amusement:
Flame Warriors
Ferrous Cranus
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved
The courts have taken away a freedom but they really haven't taken it away. Got it.
There is no judicial activism here. Courts have simply ruled that you cannot use public money or public property to advance your personal religion. Nobody is prevented from posting the TC to their heart's content so long as they do not use government resources for doing so.
If it was once permitted and the courts "simply" change it on their own, that is known as judicial activism. An example is when judge O'Connor decided that that the word "establish" actually means "endorse" in the 1st Amendment, and then used her logic to censor the city of Pittsburgh from displaying a nitivity scene to celebrate the federal holiday of Christmas.
Should the federal holiday of religion be taken away because someone's personal religion is advanced at taxpayer's expense?
VMI is a state-supported institution. As such, its staff cannot support religious displays. The students are free to pray on their own as they see fit.
The courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner that you do not agree with. That's what is comes down to.
Why do you think it is constitutional to use public money and facilities to advance one brand of religion?
Is the US senate forbidden to open with a prayer then?
Or I could as easily say to you " The courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner that you do not agree with. That's what is comes down to." The question is if the courts should take it upon themselves to update and change the constitution as they see fit, or leave that task to congress and the states. I prefer the latter process. Why do you think it is constitutional to use public money and facilities to advance one brand of religion?
Why is it okay for Christmas to be a federal holiday?
What's the saying: "The Law must be stable, but it cannot stand still."
What you seem to be in favor of is a legal system more like what exists in civil law countries. In France and Germany, for example, courts have no power to interpret law, they just apply it. So, even a supreme court ruling in those countries has no precedential value.
Common law systems work differently. Judges have to look at changes in society and in the understanding of what words mean when making decisions. Sometimes they screw it up- Roe v. Wade and the "Penumbra" is one example. However, there seems to be widespread agreement that the 1st Amendment, as currently understood, prohibits government from sponsoring religion.
What religion was brought here by the Puritans and Pilgrims? That religion, or moral base, explains the American Culture. Is it fading away? Yes! So is the nation. Live with it!
Actually I am favor of the constructionist legal system as practiced by Judge Scalia and many others right here in the US, as are a lot of the judges being appointed by president Bush.
Common law systems work differently. Judges have to look at changes in society and in the understanding of what words mean when making decisions. Sometimes they screw it up- Roe v. Wade and the "Penumbra" is one example.
I have no faith in a judge who uses changes in society to make decisions. Taken far enough, it can make the US constitution nothing more than an interesting historical document. Or you get people like Ginsburg and O'Connor making public statements on their desire to use international law as a basis for making decision. Why even have a constitution then? However, there seems to be widespread agreement that the 1st Amendment, as currently understood, prohibits government from sponsoring religion.
And at issue is what constitutes sponsoring religion. If it is unconstitutional (for example) VMI cadets to hold a group blessing before meals, I don't see how we can justify Army chaplains, who collect a salary funded by tax dollars.
To: Navydog
Here's the problem, though...while I obviously agree with you that the 16th Amendment is about as onerous as one can get, it IS an Amendment, not just a "law", and therefore is not, by definition, unConstitutional, as it is now a PART of that document.
The 16th, [just as was the 18th] is repugnant to the principles of individual liberties protected by our Constitution. It should be repealed.
If you mean that a "graduated" or "progressive" income tax is Constitutionally unsound, you may have a better point, but to date courts have not agreed. It'd be much better, in any case, to repeal the whole thing and be done with it.
To the best of my knowledge, and Tpaine, correct me if I am wrong, an Amendment can be proposed and ratified doing virtually anything, EXCEPT countering the first ten Amendments, the Bill Of Rights. The 16th did not, on its surface, do that, and so it was ratified.
The enforcement of the 16th is impossible without violating our individual rights. -- [as was the 18th] -- And as Navydog said, the 16th also violated Art I Sec 8's enumerated powers, those delegated to congress.
-- 'We the people' cannot empower Congress, [or any level of any government, fed or state] to ignore our own Constitutional contract in the enforcement of 'laws' that deprive us of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . ."
Justice Harlan
We have made a contract with each other.. Our Constitution is that bargain. And when one part of a such a contract is seriously violated, the whole is at jeopardy..
-- As we have found.
I tend to agree. However, do you agree that the 16th Amendment is, by definition, Constitutional?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that there can be such a thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.
The most important, IMO, would be having your children see the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule (e.g., "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you") every single day they attend public school.
[Yesterdays 'most important' reason]
Unless you have been living in a cave, you would not even have to ask that question. For the others, the first religious right we have lost is the right to the truth.
Generalized pap statement. Meaningless.
The nation has lost its spiritual history, which has been replaced by an Orwellian revisionist history (much the same one you propangandize).
More meaningless pap.
The remainder of those rights lost include our right to raise our children in a moral society, the right to pray in public buildings and in public places,
BS.. You can pray all you like, but you can't disturb others while doing so, phil.. That's part of our american way.
the right of our children to pray in school, and the right of our children to see constant instruction on how to be a good citizen.
Yes, we heard your clintonian 'for the children' bit yesterday. Get some new lines.
And I want even go into the Nazi-like practice that has led to the brutal slaughter of over 40 million unborn children in this nation, denying them the most cherish right: the right to life.
Phil, you are really getting desperate to drag out the nazi/abortion comparison in an effort to claim you have lost a religious right. -- Which one of ~your~ personal religious rights is violated by a neighbor woman aborting?
Strange, I attended Minnesota public schools from 1942 till '54, and don't recall seeing any religious postings in my classrooms. In fact I doubt whether the parents back then would have stood for it. Most people back then minded their own business.
I am sorry you were raised in such a sheltered environment. That might explain your anti-Christian bigotry.
Infantile accusation, phil. I'm not anti-christian. Your unfounded lying about this is shameful.
Now you write like a card-carrying member of the ACLU, so it is our nations loss that you were raised that way.
Again you attack personally, without cause. How pitiful phil.
But the point is that your community and schools had every right act to be secular, as communities in other parts of the nation had the right to cherish and nurture Christianity.
Sectarian religions should not be taught in public schools phil. Your brand of Christianity can be ~very~ offensive to your equally Christian neighbor. The community is not well served by allowing religious strife in public schools.
That right was taken away
[No such 'right' exists]
by the usurpation of power by a bigoted Supreme Court under the influence of a communist-front organization called the A.C.L.U.
Do them a favor, and keep them out of public schools.
Pathetic. You act as if my agenda is selfish (when, in fact, it is your agenda that is selfish).
I have no agenda to teach your children my religion. -- You do. -- You want religion taught in public schools.
If I had children or grandchildren in public schools, I would most certainly keep them out; but not all parents have the means to do that (do you care about their rights?).
Do these poor parents have a 'right' to demand that public schools teach religion? Get a grip phil.
For the record, my wife is a public school teacher who tells anyone who will listen that they should home-school. Why not change the public schools so they teach morality to the children rather than perversion? why not teach them to honor their parents, and not to kill, or steal, or bear false witness, or commit adultery? Or, is that too "moral" for you?
Teaching the basics of morals, [the golden rule] is fine with me, phil. -- But we all know you are not willing to stop at that.. Admit it..
Kudos to your posts, but I fear they have fallen on deaf ears...
The enforcement of the 16th is impossible without violating our individual rights. -- [as was the 18th] -- And as Navydog said, the 16th also violated Art I Sec 8's enumerated powers, those delegated to congress.
-- 'We the people' cannot empower Congress, [or any level of any government, fed or state] to ignore our own Constitutional contract in the enforcement of 'laws' that deprive us of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
We have made a contract with each other.. Our Constitution is that bargain. And when one part of a such a contract is seriously violated, the whole is at jeopardy.. -- As we have found.
I tend to agree. However, do you agree that the 16th Amendment is, by definition, Constitutional?
Did you read: -- 'The enforcement of the 16th is impossible without violating our individual rights.' ? Or the rest of my post?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that there can be such a thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.
You got it! Amazing.. -- Both the 16th & the 18th supposedly gave Congress the power to enforce 'laws' repugnant to basic principles of individual freedom. They were null an void from enactment, - as was, and is, - evidenced by the huge numbers of people who ignore them.
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.