14 May 05
1 edit
The U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This single statement is what the Supreme Court has used to create the separation of church and state. This has become sort of an unofficial law.
According to the right to freely exercise religion, I could theoretically be in a government position and practice my religion right. I am in no way making a law; I could simply be hanging a cross or displaying the 10 commandants. That’s legal right? I mean this is the supreme law of the land. With my interpretation I perfectly fine not disobeying any law. I’m not making a law, just freely exercising religion with my constitutional right, correct?
Then how Can the Supreme Court force me to take it down, there can't be a law against it, I am not making a law, only freely exercising my rights....
Wait.... Does this mean the Supreme Court has made a law??? They have no “constitutionally” power to do this... Only congress does….
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeYou didn't erect a big stone monument of the Protestant version of the 10 commandments in a federal building again did you?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This single statement is what the Supreme Court has used to create the separation of church and state. This has become sort of an unofficial law.
According to the right to freely exercise religion, I could theoretically be in a government ...[text shortened]... ourt has made a law??? They have no “constitutionally” power to do this... Only congress does….
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeYour post makes sense.
The U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This single statement is what the Supreme Court has used to create the separation of church and state. This has become sort of an unofficial law.
According to the right to freely exercise religion, I could the ...[text shortened]... ourt has made a law??? They have no “constitutionally” power to do this... Only congress does….
I'd like to see more details of what exactly the Supreme Court can or has done regarding making people remove religious symbols from the workplace etc.
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeI agree, the supreme court overstepped their boundries,
The U.S. Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This single statement is what the Supreme Court has used to create the separation of church and state. This has become sort of an unofficial law.
According to the right to freely exercise religion, I could the ...[text shortened]... ourt has made a law??? They have no “constitutionally” power to do this... Only congress does….
14 May 05
Well the courts rights to review laws and declare them unconstitutional, came from the courts its self. There is no clause in the constitution or an amendment specifically giving them this power. Instead they interpreted the constitution again for their own political agendas. ?????? In 1803 the court established this right in the Marbury v. Madison case. They explained their reasoning that the constitution "supreme law of the land, no law that goes against the constitution is valid." therefore they must protect it. In this case they GAVE them selves the right to review laws passed by congress... Hmmmm... Seems they give themselves power.... No one stops them so they continue. Why not? Look at some cases and issues today, say homosexual marriage and abortion. Congress can make a law about this, then when someone brings a case to the court, FULL POWER IS INVESTED IN THE COURTS! The reason Bush wanted an amendment over this issue was so the court can’t change it. The courts seam to change their minds from time to time based on how they are feeling. Heck these people aren’t even elected by the citizens. They have their positions for life. The courts in America are riddled with corruption.
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeRead the Constitution (Article III, Section 2 " The Judicial Power shall extend to ALL Cases .... arising under this Constitution"😉. Read the Federalist papers esp. no. 78 which gives the Constitutional basis for judicial review. Read John Locke, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. etc. Right now you don't have a clue concerning the political philosophy your country is based on.
Well the courts rights to review laws and declare them unconstitutional, came from the courts its self. There is no clause in the constitution or an amendment specifically giving them this power. Instead they interpreted the constitution again for their own political agendas. ?????? In 1803 the court established this right in the Marbury v. Madison ...[text shortened]... citizens. They have their positions for life. The courts in America are riddled with corruption.
I'll give it to you in a nutshell: this country is a republic with a government of limited powers and those powers are subservient to the rights of the individual. Individuals have fundamental, inalienable rights (read the Declaration of Independence) that no majority can take away from them. The courts have the power and the obligation to strike down laws made by a transient majority that would violate the fundamental rights possessed by the minority. Your mind is riddled with confusion; you need to get back to first principles. Good luck.
14 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderFine. the court has still over stepped its bounders. Our money even reads I GOD WE TRUST. Our nation was founded on the bases of religion. Our friends (the pilgrims) came over here to escape religious prosecution. OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGION. The only reason that clause in the bill of rights is even there is to stop the Government from establishing a new "church of England” Sticking to the basics like you want "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed... it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it" Declaration of Independence. Therefore lets go abolish our gov!
Read the Constitution (Article III, Section 2 " The Judicial Power shall extend to ALL Cases .... arising under this Constitution"😉. Read the Federalist papers esp. no. 78 which gives the Constitutional basis for judicial review. Read John Locke, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. etc. Right now you don't have a clue concerning the ...[text shortened]... ority. Your mind is riddled with confusion; you need to get back to first principles. Good luck.
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeI'm trying to follow your argument here, but I'm having some difficulty. How, exactly, has the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries regarding the First Amendment?
Fine. the court has still over stepped its bounders. Our money even reads I GOD WE TRUST. Our nation was founded on the bases of religion. Our friends (the pilgrims) came over here to escape religious prosecution. OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGION. The only reason that clause in the bill of rights is even there is to stop the Government from establi ...[text shortened]... people to alter or abolish it" Declaration of Independence. Therefore lets go abolish our gov!
14 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeBCC: OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGION
Fine. the court has still over stepped its bounders. Our money even reads I GOD WE TRUST. Our nation was founded on the bases of religion. Our friends (the pilgrims) came over here to escape religious prosecution. OUR NATION WAS FOU ...[text shortened]... " Declaration of Independence. Therefore lets go abolish our gov!
Funny, the Framers didn't think so: in the Treaty of Tripoli ratified on June 7, 1797 they said this:
Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
The rights of conscience were fundamental to the Framers; they didn't regard the freedom of religion to be limited to only preventing a national church from being established. Those rights existed whether they were put in the Bill of Rights or not; the Bill of Rights did not create rights, it recognized some explicitly but said others were retained by the People (9th Amendment).
As for abolishing the government go for it if you choose. I'd prefer a government that stuck more to fundamental rights and first principles, but I haven't given up on this one yet. Have fun.
14 May 05
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeWhat religion was our nation founded on?
Fine. the court has still over stepped its bounders. Our money even reads I GOD WE TRUST. Our nation was founded on the bases of religion. Our friends (the pilgrims) came over here to escape religious prosecution. OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGION. The only reason that clause in the bill of rights is even there is to stop the Government from establi ...[text shortened]... people to alter or abolish it" Declaration of Independence. Therefore lets go abolish our gov!
14 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderRedarding the Treaty of Tripoli, here is what President John Adams had to say:
BCC: OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON RELIGION
Funny, the Framers didn't think so: in the Treaty of Tripoli ratified on June 7, 1797 they said this:
Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
The rights of conscience were fundamental to the Framer ...[text shortened]... e to fundamental rights and first principles, but I haven't given up on this one yet. Have fun.
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
Also, the Treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of the Senate. So, this puts the lie to the claim that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.
14 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by blindcheesecakeThere are many people who believe this nonsense, but I can assure you that it is nonsense.
Fine. the court has still over stepped its bounders. Our money even reads I GOD WE TRUST. Our nation was founded on the bases of religion. Our friends (the pilgrims) came over here to escape religious prosecution. OUR NATION WAS FOU ...[text shortened]... " Declaration of Independence. Therefore lets go abolish our gov!
Who am I? Someone whose life work is studying American history, whose central interests include the role of religion in American life, and whose study has involved a considerable bit of time in Constitutional law.
Why claim expertise? Because I don't have the time to provide you with the education you need to correct the layers of misunderstandings that inform your question.
Still, I might point out as a quick and superficial lesson: the Pilgrims, who were looking to practice their faith in peace were quickly subordinated by the Puritans (after a mere ten years in America), who wished to transform the Church of England on the basis of their beliefs--and they thought they might do this from afar more effectively than from within England. Dissenters from their colony formed other colonies. These were added to colonies formed by Quakers, Catholics, and businessmen looking for profit when "it bec[a]me necessary ... to dissolve the political bonds" with mother England. The documents these revolutionaries created, forming the United States, were deeply rooted in the processes of secularization afoot in Europe that you'll find under the name Enlightenment in your history books. I would strongly recommend that you look carefully at the so-called Enlightenment and what the so-called Founding Fathers though of such trends before you make an assertion that religion is central to the American system of government. The opposite, often argued by the ACLU for example, while still a distortion, is far closer to the truth.
(On a side note, it is worth noting that your complaint is a common one among religious conservatives who draw inspiration from notions of strict constructionism. One problem with such ideology stems from the fact that its most powerful advocate the past few decades has been William Rehnquist. But on matters of State's rights, the Rehnquist Court has shown itself to run in the opposite direction from strict constructionism, while attempting to hold up the facade that such principles remain the foundation of their philosophy of jurisprudence.)