Constitutional Question

[kingjames04]

Removing the ten commandments from a courthouse is nothing more than a liberal perversion of the constitution, and the left is completely aware of it.

The establishment clause applies to Congress making laws. Since judges are not Congressmen (ever heard of separation of powers), and judges cannot make laws; clearly there is no accurate application to removing the display.

This is not to mention that the very court ruling that enforced the commandments being removed, recognized that tax dollars can be used for religious displays. The objection is the WAY it was displayed. Which is an admission that the courts are ruling in the eye of the beholder.



Here's the ruling for those interested in verification:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre70103opn.pdf

 

[acludem]

First off, regardless if you agree or disagree with Judge Moore, he as a judge, knowingly violated a court order from another court. That makes it impossible for anyone to take him seriously as a judge.

Secondly, as far as my statement about Separation of Church and State, I stand by it. IF the founders had intended for this to be a "Christian nation" as you all continue to insist, don't you think they would've said so? They didn't say so, and that's because they didn't want to this to a be Christian nation. They created a secular government on purpose. Wake up and smell the history folks. I'm not making this stuff up. Yes, it was written in by not being written in.

And Hobbit, you are welcome to not respond, but I did not attack you personally, and if you want me to take anything you have to say seriously, which generally I do because thus far you have been an intelligent debater, to stop attacking me personally.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
First off, regardless if you agree or disagree with Judge Moore, he as a judge, knowingly violated a court order from another court. That makes it impossible for anyone to take him seriously as a judge.

Secondly, as far as my statement about Separation of Church and State, I stand by it. IF the founders had intended for this to be a "Christian nation" as you all continue to insist, don't you think they would've said so? They didn't say so, and that's because they didn't want to this to a be Christian nation. They created a secular government on purpose. Wake up and smell the history folks. I'm not making this stuff up. Yes, it was written in by not being written in.

And Hobbit, you are welcome to not respond, but I did not attack you personally, and if you want me to take anything you have to say seriously, which generally I do because thus far you have been an intelligent debater, to stop attacking me personally.

acludem

I didn't attack you personally. I simply got fed up with watching you twist words. When the founding fathers wrote "congress shall make no law prohibiting the free practice of religion," that was, in no way, meant to prohibit anyone from expressing their beliefs, even if they worked for the government. There is nothing in that ammendment that says a federal employee cannot post the Ten Commandments or other scripture on his wall. I think it's absolutely rediculous that they claim a judge cannot put the Ten Commandments in his courtroom when witnesses are sworn in with a Bible.

and judges cannot make laws

Tell the liberals.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Hobbit

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and judges cannot make laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tell the liberals.

Tell the conservatives as well, with judicial nominee Priscilla Owens

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Tell the conservatives as well, with judicial nominee Priscilla Owens

I haven't heard of this one, so please enlighten me (seriously, no sarcasm).

I'm against all forms of bench legislation, no matter who does it. It's just that most of the bench legislation I've heard of recently is liberal.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Hobbit
I haven't heard of this one, so please enlighten me (seriously, no sarcasm).

I'm against all forms of bench legislation, no matter who does it. It's just that most of the bench legislation I've heard of recently is liberal.

There was a court case brought up by a group of landowners against a natural gas drilling company. The premise of the case is that the company ran dry on their specific gas caps, notified the landowner (this is done so the company does not have to pay royalties to the landowner), then after about 6 months found more natural gas to pull and failed to tell the landowner for 4 months. Because the agreement didn't specifically state that the landowner is supposed to inquire whether the company is pumping again, Owens decided in favor of the company not having to pay 4 back months of royalties, foregoing over 100 years of court precedence that they do. Luckily, her decision was overruled by the full court.

 

[kingjames04]

Judicial review resulting in laws struck down is not equal to legislating from the bench.

Niether is deciding which cases any given law does or does not apply to.

 

[DKSuddeth]

so Owens going against 100+ years of precedent, over direct wording of the law, that the gas company must inform the landowners of new gas being pumped and deciding in favor of the gas company putting the onus on the landowners in an attempt to change the law isn't activism?

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so Owens going against 100+ years of precedent, over direct wording of the law, that the gas company must inform the landowners of new gas being pumped and deciding in favor of the gas company putting the onus on the landowners in an attempt to change the law isn't activism?

I said it's not legislating from the bench, it's quite like a liberal to use the fallacy of pretending I said it's not activism.

And activism is clearly being used subjectively.

By the way, would you name the case in question? because it looks like you're even further off base in what you're trying to apply than is already exposed.

 

[NewGuy]

:cof:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by kingjames04
I said it's not legislating from the bench, it's quite like a liberal to use the fallacy of pretending I said it's not activism.

And activism is clearly being used subjectively.

By the way, would you name the case in question? because it looks like you're even further off base in what you're trying to apply than is already exposed.

so deciding against precedent to landowners, in favor of business, isn't legislating from the bench? if not, then what is it?

unlike YOU, I won't generalize conservatives with the same ignorance you are showing.

I'll find the specific case I'm referring to, in the meantime, enjoy this informative article.

judge owens

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so deciding against precedent to landowners, in favor of business, isn't legislating from the bench? if not, then what is it?

unlike YOU, I won't generalize conservatives with the same ignorance you are showing.

I'll find the specific case I'm referring to, in the meantime, enjoy this informative article.

judge owens

No it's not, you understand that legislating means creating laws don't you?

Striking down a law is not creating one.

Deciding which cases any given law applies to after a hearing on the merits, is not creating a law either.

I'll be waiting on the name of that case you're referring to.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by kingjames04
No it's not, you understand that legislating means creating laws don't you?

Striking down a law is not creating one.

Deciding which cases any given law applies to after a hearing on the merits, is not creating a law either.

I'll be waiting on the name of that case you're referring to.

it wouldn't have been striking down a law, it would have been rewriting it. theres no difference other than it applies to a judge you obviously support.

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
it wouldn't have been striking down a law, it would have been rewriting it. theres no difference other than it applies to a judge you obviously support.

As I said, deciding whether any given law applies to a certain set of circumstances, is not creating a law.

I have no opinion on her worth as a judge, it's you who initiated statements against her, and posted a website obviously written to undermine her.

Let's see the case, your claims seem to indicate that you were familiar enough to at least be able to find the name of it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.......


debate of exact terms is useless, thats fine. it can be irrelevant.

I'm having to go through an entire list of cases of hers, if you can't bide your time, too bad.

and if you feel that the independentjudiciary website it only written to undermine her, i'll use this one instead.

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.......


debate of exact terms is useless, thats fine. it can be irrelevant.

I'm having to go through an entire list of cases of hers, if you can't bide your time, too bad.

and if you feel that the independentjudiciary website it only written to undermine her, i'll use this one instead.

Did you bother to read that link?

Here's what it says:


FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin

In this case, Owen wrote a dissent from the Court's 6-3 ruling affirming a lower court decision striking down Texas Water Code Section 26.179, which had allowed certain private landowners to exempt themselves from "any environmental regulations" that were inconsistent with the private landowners' own land use and water quality plans. The majority opinion specifically criticized Owen's dissent, explaining that it consisted mostly of "inflammatory rhetoric" and was "based on a flawed premise."


You do comprehend that this says she ruled AGAINST big business, and FOR environmental regulations on them; don't you?


Let's see the case you originally attempted to use.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
IF the founders had intended for this to be a "Christian nation" as you all continue to insist,......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As WHO continues to insist? We've been through this several times, but I'm beginning to think that you, like the protaganist in Simon and Garfunkel's "The Boxer", tend to hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest.

This is not a Christian nation. It is, however, a nation founded by Christians. If you understood anything at all about Christianity, you'd know that free will is the bedrock of the faith; the whole point of the exercise. Therefore, a Christian theocracy could never exist; it is a contradiction in terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.....don't you think they would've said so? They didn't say so, and that's because they didn't want to this to a be Christian nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person's religion is supposed to be a matter of complete indifference to the government. Today's relentless attacks on Christianity, by hateful secular humanists seeking to force THEIR religion down everybody's throats, scarcely qualify as indifference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it was written in by not being written in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear God--You sound just like John Kerry.

Acludem, Please, PLEASE, take a minute to try to read and absorb this. Our conversations are beginning to repeat themselves, and it's getting to be a drag.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
First off, regardless if you agree or disagree with Judge Moore, he as a judge, knowingly violated a court order from another court. That makes it impossible for anyone to take him seriously as a judge.

And what does that say for judges who violate the laws that have been setup after voted on by the people of the particular state in question?

 

[jimnyc]

acludem, I could be wrong (too tired to search), but didn't you defend Gavin Newsom for completely disobeying the laws of California and performing gay marriages against the orders of the attorney general? I believe your excuse was that he had the right to 'interpret' the constitution and overrride what the people had previously voted on.

 

[Merlin1047]

"Also, since it was broached, how can the second amendment not apply to the states? Since they are subordinate, they by nature must support the higher authority, no?"

At the time the constitution was ratified there was already a healthy degree of paranoia regarding a strong central federal government. The ONLY reason that the constitution was finally ratified was that states were to remain sovereign within their borders.

Today that concept has been substantially watered down. Many people view a state on the national level in the same manner that they view a county on the state level. That perspective was never intended by the founders. The federal government was superior only to items stated specifically in the constitution such as providing "for the common defense".