Posted on 08/22/2003 2:40:17 PM PDT by Pokey78
If so, where do you think this will end up (e.g. SCOTUS, AL court, jail, protests, civil disobedience, fines...)?
5.56mm
I can't. And I can't show you a "fair trial" clause, either. Or "religious freedom" or "right to an attorney if you can't afford one."
If you accept that the courts have to apply the Constitution to the facts, then you'll understand why they had to rule on what the Constitution meant in terms of the First Amendment.
That doesn't mean that you have to agree with their rulings, or that they can't change.
But if you don't think that the court has the right to interpret the Constitution, then you're left with the uncomfortable position of everyone being equally able to decide what it means, which means that it means close to nothing.
Who decides?
If you mean the 10 Commandments Monument. He's been there and done that. The court refused to hear the issue.
Bear in mind that the Supreme Court no longer applies the Constitution to legal issues that should have been considered within its framework.
The justices now consider themselves an international court. They regularly cite law and court rulings from other countries, instead of only applying the American Constitution to legal issues presented to them. Traitors.
The Constitution is unique among all other national constitutions in the world. Natural rights - rights not derived from government - can not be found in any other constitution in the world.
This is why these traitors will not rule on separation issues.
A religious practices issue can only be heard within the framework of American Constitutional law. In making a ruling within this legal framework would give new life to a sacred document hated by traitors wrapped in the flag.
The Supreme Court can not, and will not, let that happen.
It would be unacceptable in the international setting of pluralistic governance - the rendering of nation states to the status of regional political jurisdictions answerable to a hemispheric government that in turn is answerable to a central global government.
The American Supreme Court is in a NWO mind-set; finding their new role to be that of parrot echoing international law - superceding all American law - including the Constitution.
>Well, yes, I guess.
>What is your solution?
I'm rather partial to the idea of a constitutional republic. Guess I'm old fashioned.
Actually, we know what anti-religion fascists are all about.
A demagogue like Moore, who hides behind religion, is far more sinister.
Well said. People keep making the point, "It's just a rock, big deal, don't be idolators" and so on. But symbols have meaning, and the meaning of this event is clear. Reminds me of the recent SCOTUS sodomy decision, also symbolic. Only a tiny handful of homosexuals were ever arrested for sodomy anyway, usually public behavior. But to have sodomy protected - legal, authorized by the law behavior - changed the legal scenery, and the homo-pushers knew it.
So with this "rock". The atheist secular-humanist leftists want every last vestige of religion and moral absolutes scraped and scrubbed from every public place, and that oppression is seeping into privately owned companies and such as well.
Recently a friend who workds for US Cellular in a small Northern CA coastal town told me that the Christmas tree that has decorated the store in previous years will be tossed, lest one atheist or other person be offended. I don't even like the custom of Christmas trees, it's originally a pagan custom and has nothing to do with Jseus' birth or message. But this is an example of the gradual destruction of religious freedom of expression and it is serious business.
First, I'm not surprised, based on the tenor of your comments. Second, I don't know that you've called yourself Catholic, but I'll assume you do (a Baptist who was pro-condom would hardly qualify as a CINO!) Third, if your opposition to the Church's teaching on artificial contraception causes you to foam at the mouth, curse the Pope, and generally wish for the destruction of the Church of which you are a part as we know it, then yes you would be a CINO. Lots of people disagree with certain teachings of the Church, but most do so without that being a cause for hate, and the majority, including most active church-goers, remain open to a more full and complete understanding of Church teaching on those issues in recognition that perfect faith and understanding is limited by our sinfulness and human limitations.
And with globalization, "we can't have that". You don't hear anyone talking about exporting the Bill of Rights, rather they are trying to destroy the Bill of Rights so that a merger with other nations will be possible.
Having a few rowdy Americans talking about "Rights" isn't going to be good for morale in the New World Order. Thus the sooner the Bill of Rights, is abolished, the easier it will be to create regional governments.
Moore will lose if he takes this to the USSC. He has stated, over and over, that this rock is a Christian symbol, and that simply is untenable in a public building, if it excludes all other religious expression.
But, Moore will likely use a defeat to run for a higher office.
Wages may be diminished but won't affect those presently sitting.
I assume that Congress has the power to get rid of everybody save the SCOTUS. And quite possibly has the authority to limit that court to one judge.
Yep!
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.