Posted on 12/15/2004 10:34:15 AM PST by RayStacy
You're correct. You have a right to practice your religion or be an atheist or agnostic. The Government will not tell you which religion or course you will practice. THAT is what the separation of Church and State is all about. The ACLU seems to think that only by abolishing all religious symbols will fulfill that but it is just the opposite. It doesn't fulfill the clause but denys it.
It was passed with the condition that a Bill of Rights be attached.
The ACLU seems to think that only by abolishing all religious symbols will fulfill that but it is just the opposite. It doesn't fulfill the clause but denys it.<<
Can the ACLU be sued for violating the rights of the people? I think they should be sued - class action perhaps.
Excellent!
Understood.
with no bor, I can see a free speech case or a newspaper case coming up back in the day when the lib sub-human filth buckets cared.. So there'd be a Supreme Court case where the libs and the good people were on the same side.
The entire premise of a socialistic government depends on a government capable of implementing it. So liberals would have had to choose between keeping enumeration, completely losing socialism but keeping some of the rights they hold dear, or abandoning enumeration thereby keeping socialism and losing some rights. They'd have chosen the latter, using the powers of the democratic majority to grant the rights they like as priviledges. They'd have NEVER agreed to fight for enumeration, because it would have meant choosing a role of government completely alien to their core beliefs.
The ENUMERATION would be the solution for THOUSANDS of cases.
And it would have been, as it was meant to be. But only so long as it stood. One "interstate commerce clause" decision later, it would have been history and along with it everything within the BoR would have been gone instantly, instead of over a period of decades.
It actually protects rights (ie, to bear arms) that are presumed, correctly, to have already existed before the BOR.
You nailed it again.
While I agree that there is a lot of problems with activist courts, a good deal of the problem comes about as a result of the 14th and 15th amendments, which basically federalize states rights.
Roe vs Wade is another example of judges thinking wrong. Since when does freedom give you the right to kill a baby in its most protected stage? There were laws against this and likely in every state at one time. Where did we go wrong? When we put freedom at a higher price than life! Remember that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only occur in that order.
Preamble to the BOR:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Over at Masonic Hall.
Don't tell me it's nonsense. Tell Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson.
Yes, but just imagine a 9th Circuit court without it...
People are getting angrier and angrier at the ACLU. The problem is the judges...<<<
Since being angry at the ACLU is not going to cure this country of their terrorism, perhaps we should look into impeaching those judges that legislate from the bench.
Judges get away with this because, well, they can! We the People must end this tyranny, the quicker the better.
IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
"[The objection has been raised that] experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. [This is] true. But though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference between the characters of the inconveniences which attend a Declaration of Rights, and those which attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in its useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial and reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting and irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
Exactly, as long as the state does not establish a religion it is ok. USA is not a religion state but a state with people who are religious. They are free to express it but not force it upon others.
I basically strongly disagree.
The contortions and distortions that have occurred have happened for two reasons:
The interstate commerce clause and
the general welfare clause
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.