Replies

I cannot believe your comment about the SCOTUS determining intent! :^( Maybe you haven't read my other posts yet.

Regardless what Justice Black wanted everybody to think about Jefferson's "wall of separation," I've posted three Jefferson extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the power of the states to address religious issues in some way. In fact, two of the extracts reference how the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to delegate government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments.

So I don't know where you're coming from with respect to defending the USSC's determination of the intentions of the Founders given they obviously got the wires crossed big time with Jefferson.

In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." --Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison 1803. http://tinyurl.com/qf2vw

"I cannot believe your comment about the SCOTUS determining intent! :^( Maybe you haven't read my other posts yet. "

Seeing as you have been here for one day, it can't bee too hard to find. I agree that we should bypass this discussion for the moment as, for good or bad, intentional or not, that is how it currently works.

"So I don't know where you're coming from with respect to defending the USSC's determination of the intentions of the Founders given they obviously got the wires crossed big time with Jefferson."

I don't believe I stated any opinion of the correctness of that interpretation.

I stated that the point was moot since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this and rarely overturns it's previous rulings. That leaves the amendment process as being the only real avenue to change it. I am specifically avoiding talking about congressional removal of judicial jurisdiction as this does not necessarily apply to the SCOTUS as they could just deny that interpretation, although they would be overruling Ex parte McCardle to do so.

"In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution."

I've never seen a secularist or Christian or Taoist nor even a satanist say anything like that. Of course they are bound by the Constitution. When language is poorly worded it becomes open to interpretation. Just because they interpreted it differently than you like is not an indication of some evil plot. It is congresses responsibility to write laws that are explicit and not open to interpretation.

Which brings me back to my original point. A simple Constitutional amendment that explicitly states what your goals are would end the problem.

What would you propose as the phraseology (to borrow a word from Chief Justice Marshall) for a Constitutional amendment?

>>>In fact, note that regardless that secularists will argue that the USSC has the power to essentially read anything they want to into the Constitution in the name of case precedent, they ignore that Justice Marshall set the precedent that judges are bound by the Constitution. <<<

Marshall also called it a crime for a judge to ignore his oath to adhere to the constitution, as follows:

"Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime." -- Marbury vs. Madison