Skip to comments.
Constitutional Question for Legal Freepers
Free Republic
| June 30, 2002
| The Raven
Posted on 06/30/2002 5:25:11 AM PDT by The Raven
Question is this:
Why not challenge the basis that schools are an arm of the government? It seems that each court takes for granted that the government (in the form of public schools) can't force kids to recite the pledge, pray, etc) - but these are local/State community based schools. What right does the court have in directing actions and behaviors? Teachers aren't Congressmen.
Or better yet, if the government is caught between a rock and a hard place --- why not challenge the Constitutionality of public schools period. A school receiving ANY instructions whatsoever from the Federal/State government - whether for or against religions, or text books touting the political agendas or fad of the moment - coupled with the States forcing children into schools - is collectivism, not individual freedom.
If Congress must interfere with freedom to worship in schools so that Congress is not forcing religion in the schools, it's a rock and a hard place - since "Congress shall make no law".....[either way]
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: churchstate; schoolchoice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 next last
To: Roscoe
First amendment safeguards have 'marxist roots'?
You're such a tar baby, roscoe, that you've lost all sense of historical reality.
81
posted on
07/02/2002 8:50:47 AM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
First amendment safeguards have 'marxist roots'? Bacwards, as usual.
Liberals and their Libertarian comrades initiating force to silence a child from saying the pledge shows the Marxist roots of the their detestable philosophies.
82
posted on
07/02/2002 9:23:21 AM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
Once again you've ignored the question as posed; that being:
Please explain as to why any theologic system should be advocated by government.
One question only, try and answer directly instead of attempting to obfuscate.
---max
83
posted on
07/02/2002 10:34:39 AM PDT
by
max61
To: Roscoe
Your Hillarian type dementia is showing again. No one is 'silencing children'.
-- Government pronoucements about 'God' however, are forbidden by the constitution.
84
posted on
07/02/2002 11:15:56 AM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
No one is 'silencing children'. False, as usual.
The court ordered a prohibition on the voluntary recitation of the Pledge by children in public schools. Leftists and Libertarians cheered.
85
posted on
07/02/2002 1:44:33 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: max61
Please explain as to why any theologic system the voluntary recitation of the Pledge should be advocated by government allowed in local public schools. It's called freedom of expression.
Under a Libertarian hegemony, our historic American rights of local self-government would repressed by force. Fortunately for our country, the members of that anarchist cult lack the intelligence and competence to accomplish its loathsome goals.
86
posted on
07/02/2002 1:50:19 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
False info, as usual, - from roscoe.
-- The court opinion said that adding the words 'under God', to the pledge, -- was an unconstitutional act of congress. - See the 1st amendment.
87
posted on
07/02/2002 2:05:52 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
The court opinion said that adding the words 'under God', to the pledge, -- was an unconstitutional act of congress. Backwards again.
The local public school's students were voluntarily reciting the Pledge. They were silenced, not Congress.
88
posted on
07/02/2002 2:10:07 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: tpaine
From the actual decision: "...the federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders directing Congress to enact or amend legislation."
89
posted on
07/02/2002 2:23:33 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
Wrong, --- the students can recite either version of the the pledge at will.
-- But a government school hierarchy cannot lead them in reciting the unconstututional version.
90
posted on
07/02/2002 2:28:01 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
But a government school hierarchy A local public school isn't Congress.
Under a Libertarian hegemony, our historic American rights of local self-government would repressed by force. Fortunately for our country, the members of that anarchist cult lack the intelligence and competence to accomplish its loathsome goals.
91
posted on
07/02/2002 2:32:17 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Roscoe
From the actual decision: "...the federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue orders directing Congress to enact or amend legislation."
Exactly. -- That's why the government schools are so 'ordered'. -- They aren't congress.
92
posted on
07/02/2002 2:33:46 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Roscoe
Whatta laugh! -- You're reduced to repeating your rant, and my point, --- just as if you had made a real one of your own. - Dementia.
93
posted on
07/02/2002 2:37:40 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Exactly. -- That's why the government schools are so 'ordered'. -- They aren't congress. Ignorance and irrationality are very Libertarian attributes.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
94
posted on
07/02/2002 2:39:35 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: The Raven
The actions of the public schools are interpreted by the Courts as being actions by the State. But your real point is still relevant. The First Amendment was never intended as any form of limitation on the rights of the States to promote religious sentiments. Indeed, the Founding Fathers strongly supported the idea of the States promoting religious sentiments. (See
Leftwing Word Games & Relgious Freedom.)
William Flax
95
posted on
07/02/2002 2:41:21 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: Roscoe
Whatever.
- Your inane repetitions are boring, roscoe. -- Get a new style.
96
posted on
07/02/2002 3:43:39 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Ohioan
>>But your real point is still relevant.
We folks on this side of the fence aren't organized. The libs seem to have an attack group for every issue.
To: The Raven
You are right. The Left sets up ad hoc groups for every useful purpose. Having separate groups draws in as many as they can on the particular issue, without compromising their positions on others. While their actual arguments are often irrational appeals to human fear and confusion, their tactics in this regard--i.e. creating a lot of specialized advocacy groups--should be studied.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
98
posted on
07/02/2002 4:31:34 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: SteamshipTime
Courts struggled with this complex Amendment for years before finally concluding that the bold-faced language could only be workably construed as incorporating all the previous Amendments and rendering states subject to them. Except for that Black Sheep, the Second Amendment of Course. That one they rely on antebellum interpretations of the what governmental entities the Bill of Rights acts upon. Those decisions took the "Congress shall make no law" restriction in the first amendment, and applied to all the rest, when that is clearly not what was contemplated. They continue to do this, inspite of the clear and stated intentions of the authors and those who voted for the 14th amendment in Congress, that the second amendment, along with the other 8 of the first 9 Amendments be applied to the state (and local) governments.
99
posted on
07/02/2002 6:55:37 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: The Raven
I'm just going to throw something out and see how others feel about it, but wasn't Thomas Jefferson the founder of the public University of Virginia.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson