Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
[snip]
Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.
[click link to read remainder of article]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, but the principles set out in the DofI are the basis for the law. If you contradict what you set out to do in the first place (form a government that recognized that men are bestowed inalienable rights by their creator) then you're obviously doing something wrong - something not within the original design. This concept of an infallible group of life-appointed judges dictating from the bench is wholly alien to the DofI and the Constitution.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell - Mr. god-hater reprobate himself. That says alot about you pal.
Fine. You decide for yourself what the Constitution says and means. You're a little supreme court. Forget what over 200 years of what some pretty smart people have written.
The constitution was written in simple language not in some 800 page document that only a lawyer can understand. Why is it people such as yourself 1) don't believe us simple folk can read such a thing and know what it says 2)That after reading something like the 14 words in the second amendment we can still not know what it means and require an interperter.
Is this the question? The answer is that slavery has always been wrong as our D of I clearly states. If this issue had been raised in 1787, a republic would have been impossible. However, that is no excuse, and it resulted in the most bloody of wars. The framers acknowledged that chattel slavery was wrong but were perplexed as to how to deal with it. The Supreme Court didn't abolish slavery, War, Lincoln and the 13th amendment combined to abolish it once and for all. In fact, the SCOTUS upheld it in Dred Scott. Courts don't make laws remember (I know that's tough for you to accept). The framers weren't perfect, but they were not moral relativists and machiavellian pragmatists as many justices are today. There, I answered your question. You must have been taught the revisionist version of history eh?
I would think that threatening another freeper might border on "No personal attacks." You may want to consider controlling your temper.
It has nothing to do with the intelligence of anyone who reads it. It has everything to do with the fact that reasonable people can read the Constitution and come to different conclusions, especially when applying it to a fact situation.
That is why we have 200 years of disputes over the meaning of the Constitution that have been decided at the US Supreme Court level.
Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.
Amen!
Every individual cannot be the final authority on the meaning of a particular clause because everyone won't agree.
so basicly words, not to mention the historical context, cannot be understood by the common man, so us common people need someone edgucated at a properly leftist school to learn us what terms like "congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" mean?
For example
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...Okay, so we know unreasonable searches aren't unconstitutional. That's the plain language.
But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.
unreasonable searches are unconstitutional
But if you are the final authority on the meaning of that, I think I can guarantee that you'll probably never find a situation where the cops can come and search your house, and certainly never when you have something to hide.
you mean it does'nt mean what it says? Just because the constitution is'nt no longer taught in government schools resulting in ignorance of it and thereby opening the door to whatever propoganda the media will report about it, such as the seperation of the church and state, It does'nt mean what it says? Just because politcians have gotten away with making laws that violate it does'nt make those violations a part of it. The government will always chafe at the bit of anything limiting it's power and try to disregard it if it can..the first part was claiming ownership of what's taught in schools and then doing away with teaching the children what the constitution actually said. Then the people those children have grown into will believe whatever the government says about what the constitution says simply because they don't know any better..you have taken it a bit further..promoting what is not in the constitution. The first amendment stops congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting it..the federal government is now prohibiting it via the supreme court until the people who actually grew up before the government stopped teaching the constitution, die off then it can tell the new crop of properly ignorant voters whatever it wants them to believe. Then they will claim, like you, that only the supreme court can grant you rights.
Here's a hint: anger management. Try it.
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.