Posted on 06/27/2005 8:47:57 AM PDT by Irontank
"I've said here previously (many times) that Thomas is the only person for Chief, he's the best justice we have. (Sorry Scalia fans.. I'm a Thomas man)."
I agree. I previously supported Scalia for CJ, and I continue to think he is the most brilliant mind on the court. However, I think several recent cases have shown that Thomas has a much better grasp of original intent, as exemplified by his comments on the commerce clause and establishment clause. I'd give anything for 5 justices with Thomas's views on the limited role of the central government.
Soon to be replaced by "In big, all-powerful, central government we believe."
Or unratified treaties, or the entrails of a sacrificed goat, or by calling a Psychic Friend, etc. Sad state of affairs.
"Except the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, ratified by the Senate and therefore the law of the land. It states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
I'm not familiar with that one. Do you have a link?
"Also numerous documents penned by Jefferson"
God is mentioned at least three times in the Declaration of Independence - our founding document. That Founding Document also states that our rights derive from God, not from the State. And Jefferson, in many ways an odd duck and intellectual egghead - penned the Declaration of Independence. I believe Tom Paine left America to work for the French Revolutionnaires in their aborted efforts to successfully emulate us.
"Accustom a people to believe that priests, or any other class of men can forgive sins, and you will have sins in abundance.[The Theological Works of Thomas Paine, p.207]"
Cahtolicism was hardly represented in early America. And the French Revolution, of wich Mr. Paine was so fond, was not merely a bloody event, it was an iconoclastic atheistic event. I don't have anything against an individual who is personally an atheist, but I don't want atheism shoved down my throat, or, in Paine's case, used as a rationale for murdering clergymen, looting and sacking houses of worship and destroying priceless historic relics.
Jefferson by the way was a rabid Francophile who was forced to resign from Washington's cabinet for treaonous or near treasonous activities involving the murderous French "Republic" and its efforts to recruit America in opposing Britain and re-establishing a French Empire in North America.
There are far more "Founding Fathers" than flawed Tom Paine and odd-duck Jeffferson.
No truer wish has been wished, my friend.
New tagline
So the 14th amendment was not meant to apply to states? You mean that amendment which says among other things " No State shall make of enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You are talking about the Fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution aren't you?
bttt
Oops! I meant the 14th didn't mean to apply the BOR to the states. My bad.
Okley Dokley. I guess the validity of that statement depends upon the meanings of "privileges and immunities."
First of all, your statement is not accurate. Not all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. Those that have been incorporated have been adopted piecemeal, decade by decade, by SCOTUS fiat, without any input whatsoever from the public.
I believe you assume too much if you think that an informed public would easily pass "an Amendment making this explicit." An ignorant and uninformed public might allow it, but an informed population? Not necessarily. There is an alternative, and that alternative is the state constitutions.
I would love to see such an amendment porposed if for no other reason than to kindle popular debate about the proper roles of the federal and state governments. The Supreme Court has heretofore killed or prevented debate and arrogantly presumed its own small wisdom in place of the vigorous give and take of the democratic process. In doing so, SCOTUS has made children of us all.
Thank you for that link.
Not sure what you mean, but the P&I clause has NEVER been interpreted by anybody to apply the BOR to the states. To quote (roughly)Bork "The p and i clause was left a dead letter over 100 years ago, as it should have been."
It is those laws which must be declared null and void, not the free exercise of religion.
This is a logic expression that the Court has gotten wrong for the past 40+ years. They are supposed to be educated men and women, but they failed Logic 101, and continue to exhibit their pathetic failing.
Yes...any laws that entangle the federal government in local schools violate the Constitution...the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. By what (legitimate) authority does the federal government involve itself in matters of education?
No, the 4,5,6,9,and 10 do NOT apply to the states. As for 4, 5, and 6 -- the states were empowered to handle their crim just systems as they saw fit. Period. Now, I use the term "apply" to mean "limiting the power thereof". The 9 and 10 do not apply because they do NOT limit the states' powers. The term "prohibited by it" in the 10 does NOT limit state power -- it DOES, however, refer back to Art 1, Sec 10, a clause which DOES limit state power. Besides, what are you saying???? You don't take exception to the post that started this thread, the post which says the 1st amend does not apply to the states, so are you saying that the the intent of the BOR was that the 1st NOT apply to the states but the others do??? That would be strange.
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.