Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Mr. Shaman]

Santorum probably throws up if he sees a naked woman too. That is one seriously repressed man.

I'm thinkin' he got a fairly-early start......

 

[jillian]

There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment

If you don't understand that to have freedom of religion, then you need freedom FROM religion, youre sorely misguided.

I think Rick santorum would probably be more comfortable living in the vatican. It's beautiful. Lots of great art and no one will offend his sensibilities with little inconveniences like him not being ble to force me to live by his religious tenets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on of separation of church and state.

As opposed to jobs and the economy – one of the many reasons why Obama will be reelected.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

Fortunately no one cares what Santorum thinks, and it’s not his call to make. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and determine the Framers’ intent.

The case law is clear and settled: the Framers indeed intended to establish a wall of separation between church and State.

Santorum’s desire to violate the Constitution and the Framers’ intent is obviously predicated on the authoritarian nature of conservatism, where all must conform and diversity must be punished, particularly with regard to matters of religion.

There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment.

It’s right here:

The majority in the Everson case…agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

There’s also no mention of an individual right to own a handgun in the Second Amendment, but I don’t hear you or others on the right complaining about that.

Remember that the Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

First Amendment fail

It doesn't call for separation of Church and State. Merely calls for no official religion.

Incorrect. See: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

Incorrect. See: Marbury v. Madison

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Santorum probably throws up if he sees a naked woman too. That is one seriously repressed man.

8 FUCKING KIDS and you think he hates women naked.

What part of the universe are you from I'd say Rick's got mojo baby. May look like a dork, but somethings hitting home.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOpMsuz_uK4]Friends of God -- Ted Haggard and Sex - YouTube[/ame]
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkWcT9CVOrs[/ame]
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ7HspWxVmE[/ame]

​

 

[Leweman]

There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment

If you don't understand that to have freedom of religion, then you need freedom FROM religion, youre sorely misguided.

I think Rick santorum would probably be more comfortable living in the vatican. It's beautiful. Lots of great art and no one will offend his sensibilities with little inconveniences like him not being ble to force me to live by his religious tenets.

Just pointing out an indisputable fact.

 

[Leweman]

Rick Santorum on Sunday took on of separation of church and state.

As opposed to jobs and the economy – one of the many reasons why Obama will be reelected.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

Fortunately no one cares what Santorum thinks, and it’s not his call to make. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and determine the Framers’ intent.

The case law is clear and settled: the Framers indeed intended to establish a wall of separation between church and State.

Santorum’s desire to violate the Constitution and the Framers’ intent is obviously predicated on the authoritarian nature of conservatism, where all must conform and diversity must be punished, particularly with regard to matters of religion.


It’s right here:



There’s also no mention of an individual right to own a handgun in the Second Amendment, but I don’t hear you or others on the right complaining about that.

Remember that the Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

First Amendment fail

It doesn't call for separation of Church and State. Merely calls for no official religion.

Incorrect. See: Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District

The Supreme Court doesn't have that authority.

Incorrect. See: Marbury v. Madison

Dude ... you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution, just more examples of the court doing things they don't have the power to do.

 

[Oddball]

Remember that the Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

Funny...The words "case law" are nowhere to be found in the document, you fraud.

 

[occupied]

Nope only supposed to judge cases based on what is in the constitution not make up shit.

Their judgements become precedent law and are built on earlier precedent law. Our constitution is a mere skeleton that required a lot of fleshing out.

I know ... whats your point. It's not supposed to be like that. We have an amendment process to change and add to the constitution.

It is supposed to be exactly like that. All laws are subject to being struck down by the appropriate court. It is a fluid process that the amendment process could never keep up with.

 

[jillian]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As usual, the libs take things out of context. What Santorum objects to seems to me to be the inability of people of faith to attempt any participation in politics without hearing cries from the ACLU and the atheists about "separation of church and state". The founding fathers did not intend that all religious beliefs be disregarded. They did not intend that religious symbols be disallowed in public.

The liberals, atheists and others suffering from delusions of superiority will jump at the chance to remove prayer from school, nativity scenes from public property, God from our currency and whatever else has an inkling of religion in it. I am surprised they haven't called for a remodeling of the Supreme Court building...to remove the images of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vs5570pKw]Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) Chastises Bill Clinton - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWjXedX7pLA]Larry Craig Police Interrogation Audio - YouTube[/ame]


​

 

[Leweman]

Their judgements become precedent law and are built on earlier precedent law. Our constitution is a mere skeleton that required a lot of fleshing out.

I know ... whats your point. It's not supposed to be like that. We have an amendment process to change and add to the constitution.

It is supposed to be exactly like that. All laws are subject to being struck down by the appropriate court. It is a fluid process that the amendment process could never keep up with.

Except shit doesn't need to always be changing on the whim of the 5 people who happen to agree with each other at that time.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I know ... whats your point. It's not supposed to be like that. We have an amendment process to change and add to the constitution.

It is supposed to be exactly like that. All laws are subject to being struck down by the appropriate court. It is a fluid process that the amendment process could never keep up with.

Except shit doesn't need to always be changing on the whim of the 5 people who happen to agree with each other at that time.

And normally it doesn't . That's why judicial precedent is considered law. So that courts just don't just change things on a whim.

 

[Leweman]

It is supposed to be exactly like that. All laws are subject to being struck down by the appropriate court. It is a fluid process that the amendment process could never keep up with.

Except shit doesn't need to always be changing on the whim of the 5 people who happen to agree with each other at that time.

And normally it doesn't . That's why judicial precedent is considered law. So that courts just don't just change things on a whim.

creating the precedent is doing just that.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Except shit doesn't need to always be changing on the whim of the 5 people who happen to agree with each other at that time.

And normally it doesn't . That's why judicial precedent is considered law. So that courts just don't just change things on a whim.

creating the precedent is doing just that.

and that is EXACTLY how the system was designed to work.

 

[Oddball]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

And you might want to look up "admiralty maritime law"...You'll find it in Black's....Then you might learn something about the real jurisdiction we're subjugated under.

 

[occupied]

Except shit doesn't need to always be changing on the whim of the 5 people who happen to agree with each other at that time.

And normally it doesn't . That's why judicial precedent is considered law. So that courts just don't just change things on a whim.

creating the precedent is doing just that.

There is also the concept of "settled law" where no court could ever justify overturning it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nice of you to completely mischaracterize the quote. From your link

I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

The role that the church and people of faith have within the government has nothing to do with the first amendment. The role of government in your religion does. There is a stark difference.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Dude you aren't giving any links to statements in the constitution.

You might want to look up what a common law system is since that is what this country is. Case law interpreting the words of the constitution has equal weight with the document itself, since we aren't a code state like France.

You would do well to actually learn something about constitutional construction.

And you might want to look up "admiralty maritime law"...You'll find it in Black's....Then you might learn something about the real jurisdiction we're subjugated under.

wut???

As the name implies, admiralty maritime law concerns the sea, not a national legal system.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Santorum probably throws up if he sees a naked woman too. That is one seriously repressed man.

I'm thinkin' he got a fairly-early start......

To be fair, we know that he and his wife have had sex 11 times.

Well, actually, we know his wife has had sex 11 times during their marriage nut not necessarily WITH (ICK!) him.

Anyway, he's nuts. That's a given. If he had the power, he would put more creepy, religious nuts on the SCOTUS and actually do some real damage.

Before you could say, Holy Anal Leakage, Batman, he's have everything except an aspirin between her knees illegal.

In point of fact, he has been saying as much ever since this disaster started.

All you rw's - is THAT really what you want?Do you really want some evangelical fruitcake telling you what's allowed in your bedroom?

Or do you honestly believe he'll leave you alone and be controlling only the bedrooms and private lives of Libs?

 

[Lakhota]

Rick Santorum has a law degree, and he certainly knows the following:

1. We have a Godless Constitution.

2. We have the First Amendment to that Constitution.

3. Under President George Washington, the Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11) clearly states that the U.S. was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.