A Loss For ACLU

[Annie]

Should be interesting case for the new SCOTUS, once O'Connor is retired:

http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=294

Court of Appeals Okays Ten Commandments Display

Yesterday afternoon we received word of a major victory in one of our Ten Commandments cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the decision of a U.S. district court judge in Kentucky, upholding Mercer County, Kentucky’s inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the display of historical documents in the county courthouse. The unanimous decision rejected the ACLU’s arguments that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In fact, in writing for the court, the circuit justice specifically rejected the ACLU’s claims, noting that the ACLU’s “repeated reference to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.” The court went on to say that a reasonable person viewing Mercer County’s display would appreciate “the role religion has played in our governmental institutions and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious reference influences, even in the form of sacred text, in honoring American traditions.”

This represents a huge victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally. For far too long, these counties have been lectured like school children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people’s Constitution really means. What the Sixth Circuit has said is that people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution than most courts do. The court also recognized that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of religious heritage and traditions. This is by far the most significant Ten Commandments victory since the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a display to stand in Texas. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court striking down McCreary County’s display, which was identical to this one, this bodes well for us in future cases.

Interestingly, the Sixth Circuit talked about the ACLU’s mission. The court said that “the ACLU, an organization whose mission is to ensure that . . . the government is kept out of the religion business does not embody the reasonable person.” It is quite likely that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. We will keep everyone posted on information regarding this significant victory. For more information, please visit www.aclj.org.

 

[dmp]

YAY! Score one for the good guys.

 

[Annie]

YAY! Score one for the good guys.

Yup, that's what I thought!

 

[musicman]

Perhaps there's a flaw in my reasoning somewhere, but - for the life of me - I can't understand why the ACLU and others aren't being confronted with the most compelling Constitutional argument of all: the devolutionary design of the document itself.

"Congress shall make no law..." means that religion is none of the central - that is to say, federal - government's business. It is - by the design of our founders - a matter for the community, and its duly elected representatives. The intent of the framers of the Constitution could not have been clearer.

So, what am I missing? Where have we gone wrong?

 

[GotZoom]

Perhaps there's a flaw in my reasoning somewhere, but - for the life of me - I can't understand why the ACLU and others aren't being confronted with the most compelling Constitutional argument of all: the devolutionary design of the document itself.

"Congress shall make no law..." means that religion is none of the central - that is to say, federal - government's business. It is - by the design of our founders - a matter for the community, and its duly elected representatives. The intent of the framers of the Constitution could not have been clearer.

So, what am I missing? Where have we gone wrong?

Because, despite of certain words, most people know that our country was based on Christian principles.

Without that kind of base, what would happen to us?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Perhaps there's a flaw in my reasoning somewhere, but - for the life of me - I can't understand why the ACLU and others aren't being confronted with the most compelling Constitutional argument of all: the devolutionary design of the document itself.

"Congress shall make no law..." means that religion is none of the central - that is to say, federal - government's business. It is - by the design of our founders - a matter for the community, and its duly elected representatives. The intent of the framers of the Constitution could not have been clearer.

So, what am I missing? Where have we gone wrong?

Allowing paranoid jews to make too much policy "because of the holocaust".

 

[musicman]

I just get upset at the idea that conservatives aren't tackling this problem head-on, when the truth - and the Constitution - are on our side. Why all this tiptoeing around about "historical significance" and such? How have tyrants managed to shoehorn the federal government into matters that are expressly forbidden it? By what sleight-of-hand do these tyrants impose upon local governments the restrictions our founders aimed ONLY AT CONGRESS?

 

[Abbey Normal]

...In fact, in writing for the court, the circuit justice specifically rejected the ACLU’s claims, noting that the ACLU’s “repeated reference to the separation of church and state has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.” ...

Oh, BE STILL MY HEART!!!

Thank you, Kathianne. When I saw the title of your thread, I of course hit it immediately, but the content was even better.

 

[007]

Should be interesting case for the new SCOTUS, once O'Connor is retired:

http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=294

I hope this sets precident, and is the begining of a turn around.