A stained glass window of George Washington praying, in the chapel in the U.S. Capitol
;)
Posted on 04/05/2005 2:22:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
VANITY NOTICE: I've just learned that I am an "EXTREMIST!" WOO HOO!!
Nicest compliment I've received in a long time.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Y'all might want to be careful who you hang out with. If you are pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-Liberty, pro-America and post to FreeRepublic.com, you risk being labeled as an "extremist."
That puts you in the company of extremist folks like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, & Co.
As extremists, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Speaking of quotes from our extremist forefathers, someone sent me these this morning:
George Washington - "..And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."
John Adams - "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
James Madison - "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
Noah Webster - "No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
See you at the March for Justice!!
May God continue to bless and watch over America and all her extremists!
Extremely excellent bump.
Bumpin' it up to the EXTREME. ;-)
From Lib to Right-Wing Extremist! Most beautiful transformation I've ever seen!
It took me about 6 emails to persuade them to do it. The president of that society is a truly obnoxious little twit; I was considering sending the info. to the Harvard Crimson, who would be delighted to publish that a group of law students supposedly devoted to the original intent of the founders couldn't tell the original writings of the founders from a fake quote fabricated for a motivational calendar in 1958.
HOME - EXHIBITION OVERVIEW - OBJECT LIST
SECTIONS: I. America as Refuge - II. 18th Century America
III. American Revolution - IV. Congress of the Confederation - V. State Governments
VI. Federal Government - VII. New Republic
VI. Religion and the Federal Government
[ PART 1 ] [ PART 2 ]
In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.
Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006497.jpg
Read the opinions of the 2nd DCA.
Right. There WAS no "gun control law" in Nazi Germany . . . because the Weimar Republic, in 1926, had already banned all guns and basically confiscated most. The democracy did it---the Nazis didn't have to.
The Congress ordered and put a de novo review in the Federal system, yet on Page 8 of one of the opinions of the Federal Circuit Court (applellate level) one finds this:
There's your de novo review of the facts. Back in state court, so says the Federal Circuit court. The de novo review was limited to errors of law.To the extent plaintiffs complain that the quantum of evidence did not rise to the level of clear and convincing, these claimed evidentiary errors are a matter of state law, not federal constitutional law.
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/al-arian/Opinions/Schiavo-v-Schiavo-2ndOrderDenyingTRO.pdf
"The De Novo review was limited to errors of law". That is my point; to assert that there were multiple courts who "reveiwed" the case is, at best, disengenuous.
The schools might tend to be a tad liberal thus wishing to suppress any pro-Christianity thoughts from Mr. M.
I hold the opinion that it is deliberate misdirection and/or misinformation, and encourage all readers to check the raw evidence for themselves in order to form a reasoned opinion.
It is discouraging to believe that folks on this site would purposefully promulgate dis-information. But, having been around the block more than a few times, I know that anything is possible.
It is discouraging to believe that folks on this site would purposefully promulgate dis-information. But, having been around the block more than a few times, I know that anything is possible.
You can say they didn't do it all you want, but their opinions make it quite plain to anyone who can read what they wrote that they did, in fact, review the facts. Or perhaps you have another explanation for why they reviewed ALL of the videotape submitted?
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt <--
We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273.In Browning, we stated:
In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life.... In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor life.
The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
I submit that the question posed by the court is incorrect on many counts, including a presumption that Terri's wishes would be conditioned on recovery; that the death was "natural;" and that Terri's wishes would somehow relate to "freeing her family." IMO, this appellate court is playing a CYA for the trial court; i.e., they are all judges, and it pains them to be critial of one another. Professional courtesy and all that.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder07-01.txt <--
That opinion is fairly complex, and touchs on some deficiencies relating to "new evidence" and whether or not the Schindlers were a legally proper party in the legal action.
Almost as soon as the procedures were discontinued, the Schindlers were informed of new evidence that they believe establishes that their daughter would either not have made that decision fourteen months earlier at the time the original order was entered, or that she would make a different decision at this time. On April 26, 2001, the Schindlers filed a motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship proceeding. That motion alleged that the Schindlers had discovered new evidence in the form of testimony from a new witness. According to the motion, this witness was a former girlfriend of Mr. Schiavo. She allegedly would testify that Mr. Schiavo told her that Mrs. Schiavo and Mr. Schiavo never discussed what Mrs. Schiavo's wishes would be in her present condition. The motion alleged that this testimony was contrary to Mr. Schiavo's testimony at trial, and that it might prove Mr. Schiavo committed perjury in the proceedings. The Schindlers attached two affidavits to the motion. Neither of these affidavits was executed by the witness.That means the affidavits filed in the trial court below (which ruled in Schindler's favor) were deficient as evidence. I agree with that conclusion. The affididavit should reflect the statement of the witness, Terri's friend. The Schindler's corrected the deficiency, and here is what the appellate court had to say ...Instead, the affidavits were given by Mr. Schindler and by a private investigator hired by Mr. Schindler, and contained hearsay allegations regarding what this potential witness told them. [FN2]
FN2. Technically, the notary stated in each affidavit that the witness "acknowledged" the "foregoing instrument." The notary did not use the normal language "sworn to or affirmed and signed before me."
The new information the Schindlers provided to the guardianship court in the hearsay affidavits supporting their motion for relief from judgment is not as forceful as the evidence described in our hypothetical scenarios. [FN9] The affidavits concern alleged statements by Mr. Schiavo several years ago. We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.The "hypothetical scenarios" are finding a written directive by Terri, or finding that teh medical diagnosis (of TERMINAL! according to this court) is incorrect -- in fact, the court says that Schindlers are expect to contest the fact that Terri's brain has suffered major permanent damage. Anyway, the court is saying that Terri's friend's testimony that Michaels said he and Terri never talked about her end wishes is not as powerful as finding Terri's written wishes, or as powerful as medical tesimony that Terri would "recover" (whatever that means). FN9 is the court saying that it will NOT consider the friend's tesimony, now before it in the form of an affidavit from Terri's friend.FN9. The deposition of the witness referred to in the affidavits was taken after these appeals were filed. Although Mr. Schiavo has filed a copy of that deposition with this court as part of his motion to enforce mandate, for the purposes of this specific appeal the court concludes that it should consider only the information available at the time the guardianship court denied the motion for relief from judgment.
I obtained the links to these court opinins, and others at ...
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.