Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"We"?
You have a tapeworm?
The crux of the issue is here: "Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means,..."
a) I believe that, outside of the amendment process, the specific words and language of the Constitution should direct this nation.
b) I believe that the Constitution was fitting for its time, but the world changes and so wise judges should state what the law should be, and their decisions used as precedent, as co-equal to the words in the Constitution...even, at times, contrary to those words.
"We"?
You have a tapeworm?
Again you show you lack the most basic reading skills. I didn't post the original question so the person that did and I will wait.
The crux of the issue is here: "Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means,..."
So then no, you don't have case law to back up your position, got it.
"We"?
You have a tapeworm?
Again you show you lack the most basic reading skills. I didn't post the original question so the person that did and I will wait.
The crux of the issue is here: "Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means,..."
So then no, you don't have case law to back up your position, got it.
a) I believe that, outside of the amendment process, the specific words and language of the Constitution should direct this nation.
b) I believe that the Constitution was fitting for its time, but the world changes and so wise judges should state what the law should be, and their decisions used as precedent, as co-equal to the words in the Constitution...even, at times, contrary to those words.
I believe the SCOTUS already set precedent and your false dilemma doesn't bother me a bit.
When right wingers insist there is no separation of church and state, what is it they are trying to get at? What do they actually want? Are they looking for a kind of "Christian" Taliban? Do they want to put America under a "Christian" style "Sharia Law"? Does that mean we suddenly stop teaching "science"? One wonders.
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law. Prior to this decision the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"[3] imposed limits on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]"
Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Everson has been used as a cudgel to beat religion out of the public marketplace.
Context is especially important as
a) the words of the Constitution are clear.
and
b) The words of Hugo Black in Everson should not be viewed without the following:
2. [Black's] affinity for church-state separation and the metaphor was rooted in virulent anti-Catholicism. Philip Hamburger has argued that Justice Black, a former Alabama Ku Klux Klansman, was the product of a remarkable "confluence of Protestant [specifically Baptist], nativist, and progressive anti-Catholic forces.... Black's association with the Klan has been much discussed in connection with his liberal views on race, but, in fact, his membership suggests more about [his] ideals of Americanism," especially his support for separation of church and state. "Black had long before sworn, under the light of flaming crosses, to preserve the sacred constitutional rights' of free public schools' and separation of church and state.'" Although he later distanced himself from the Klan, "Black's distaste for Catholicism did not diminish." Hamburger, Separation of Church and State, pp. 423, 434, 462, 463
It is important to remember that judges are merely men who are charged with applying the Constitution.
Sadly, since the Progressive era began, law schools have produced judges who have taken a view of themselves as being above the Constitution.They often impose their own views, without connection to the Constitution.
3. Chief Justice William Rehnquist speaks to this issue:
"[The Progressive idea]... . seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving societys
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
So how about it?
I invite them to cite case law in support of their position, provided they can find it.
Whenever you find the case law that backs up your position, please feel free to post it here.
Well wait
"We"?
You have a tapeworm?
The crux of the issue is here: "Marbury the Court determines what the Constitution means,..."
To the extent that the language of the Constitution is unclear, this is true.
Now...I suspect that this may be beyond your ability, but if it is not, would you consider the followiing choices and choose the one with which you most agree:
a) I believe that, outside of the amendment process, the specific words and language of the Constitution should direct this nation.
b) I believe that the Constitution was fitting for its time, but the world changes and so wise judges should state what the law should be, and their decisions used as precedent, as co-equal to the words in the Constitution...even, at times, contrary to those words.
Upon careful consideration, I think you will see the point...and, I suspect, be able to predict which each of us would choose.
Please defend your choice.
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So exactly which church do you want to take over the US government? The catholic church? The presbyterians? Maybe the Southern Baptists... after all, I was thunked and dunked in my youth, so perhaps I'm biased. I know! The Mormons! From what I hear they've got a serious eye on the seat of power right now!
Say, is it okay if a Synagogue takes over the US government? Because if there is no legitimate separation of church and state, then the stampede for power is on, right? Every religion is gonna want to be in charge!
Wait... wouldn't that be what is known as a... theocracy? Hmm. Gonna have to whip up some constitutional amendments to pull that one off, methinks. Ready for the challenge?
No, but "arms" does. And a pistol is a way one arms themselves.
Ah, thank you. So you're saying that different words can be used to say essentially the same thing, so,
separation of church and state can be in the Constitution without the explicit phrase 'separation of church and state' being there.
That's my point.
ta da!!
No, what I'm saying is there is no separation of church and state in the constitution and only a liberal idiot would surmise that it did.
The First Amendment's widely misunderstood Establishment Clause simply means that the state will not set up any official state religion, nor will it prohibit any person from freely exercising the religious dictates of his or her own conscience. However, this restriction on the Government's intrusion into the private religious convictions of its citizenry does NOT mean that all aspects of religion should be kept completely out of the affairs of the State.
President John Quincy Adams, the son of the great statesman from Massachusetts who did so much to inspire the Declaration of Independence, stated the truth succinctly on July 4, 1821: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
How many Americans today even remember that it was the Great Awakening and the fiery sermons of the Patriot Pastors that sparked the American Revolution, or that the rallying cry of the Colonial rebels was "No King but Jesus"? No, sadly, most Americans today have been spoon-fed a poison porridge of revisionist lies that claim George Washington and Company were all rationalistic Desists seeking to advance the secular ideals of the French Enlightenment. (For more truthful information, see David Barton's website, http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/.)
Fifty years later, the Liberal icon Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court: "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion." (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952)
Still, many Americans mistakenly believe the phrase "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution. It doesn't. Why are so many Americans so misinformed? Because three generations of secular humanist educators and atheistic ACLU ideologues have parroted this big lie so often that the dumbed-down, indoctrinated masses have finally begun to believe it, simply because nobody ever bothered to explain the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Liberals always claim to believe in the Constitution, even if they wrongly interpret it. But what we're dealing with here is not a difference of opinion on some debatable topic, but rather a willful ignorance (real or professed) of long-settled historical facts.
This blatant distortion of our nation's history is a slap in the face of American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this widespread anti-Christian disinformation campaign. The public schools should be teaching our children the truth, not just what they want kids to believe. Those of us who know the truth need to hold the Liberals accountable for their insidious lies.
Separation of church and state: myth and reality
When right wingers insist there is no separation of church and state, what is it they are trying to get at? What do they actually want? Are they looking for a kind of "Christian" Taliban? Do they want to put America under a "Christian" style "Sharia Law"? Does that mean we suddenly stop teaching "science"? One wonders.
Actually, I belive what is trying to be reestablished is morality.
You know, the kind that produced the civil rights struggle, stemming from the idea that, since we are all created in God's image, we must be seen as equal...
Got a problem with that?
When right wingers insist there is no separation of church and state, what is it they are trying to get at? What do they actually want? Are they looking for a kind of "Christian" Taliban? Do they want to put America under a "Christian" style "Sharia Law"? Does that mean we suddenly stop teaching "science"? One wonders.
Actually, I belive what is trying to be reestablished is morality.
You know, the kind that produced the civil rights struggle, stemming from the idea that, since we are all created in God's image, we must be seen as equal...
Got a problem with that?
With Rick Perry in the running and maybe becoming the front runner soon for the whole shooting match the liberals will go on the attack with this liberal myth
No-one wants the president to make there choices because Allah came to them and told them to
But to be a Christian and be a practicing Christian as well as being the president, having a day of prayer, etc.. is not against the law nor is it forbidden by anything in our constitution as we are told over and over it is
This will become a hot issue with Perry
watch for it and know when you hear it, your being lied to
The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. [2]
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So exactly which church do you want to take over the US government? The catholic church? The presbyterians? Maybe the Southern Baptists... after all, I was thunked and dunked in my youth, so perhaps I'm biased. I know! The Mormons! From what I hear they've got a serious eye on the seat of power right now!
Say, is it okay if a Synagogue takes over the US government? Because if there is no legitimate separation of church and state, then the stampede for power is on, right? Every religion is gonna want to be in charge!
Wait... wouldn't that be what is known as a... theocracy? Hmm. Gonna have to whip up some constitutional amendments to pull that one off, methinks. Ready for the challenge?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Why is this so hard for leftists to understand?
How would a religion take over the government? By displaying Christmas lights?
As for the famous separation of church and state, the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.
Dishonest argument to say the least, the concept predates the Constitution and was the guiding principle behind the Establishment Clause. The three colonies which did not have an established religion (PA, RI, NY) are the ones which pushed for that section of the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didnt do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is a wall of separation between church and state. He wasnt speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.
Wrong. It religion contaminating government was EXACTLY what he was talking about. When religion contaminates government, free exercise of religion is compromised. Jefferson had little to no respect for those who tried to mix political aspirations with espoused piety.
You are probably relying heavily on David Barton and Wallbuilders for your info. Be warned. They engage in terrible scholarship and make stuff up frequently.
It certainly was never intended to mean a cleansing of every slight indication that religion exists from public settings.
Actually it means to embrace all religions as opposed to a specific faith. Inclusiveness is considered the guiding principle. As long as it doesn't encourage sectarianism, it will be OK. Perry's involvement with that prayer group 2 weeks ago was blatantly discriminatory and sectarian in nature. So it was not comparable to the National Prayer days the WH has.
WILMINGTON, Del. Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.
"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."
O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.
Christine O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State (VIDEO)
So exactly which church do you want to take over the US government? The catholic church? The presbyterians? Maybe the Southern Baptists... after all, I was thunked and dunked in my youth, so perhaps I'm biased. I know! The Mormons! From what I hear they've got a serious eye on the seat of power right now!
Say, is it okay if a Synagogue takes over the US government? Because if there is no legitimate separation of church and state, then the stampede for power is on, right? Every religion is gonna want to be in charge!
Wait... wouldn't that be what is known as a... theocracy? Hmm. Gonna have to whip up some constitutional amendments to pull that one off, methinks. Ready for the challenge?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Why is this so hard for leftists to understand?
How would a religion take over the government? By displaying Christmas lights?
So exactly which church do you want to take over the US government? The catholic church? The presbyterians? Maybe the Southern Baptists... after all, I was thunked and dunked in my youth, so perhaps I'm biased. I know! The Mormons! From what I hear they've got a serious eye on the seat of power right now!
Say, is it okay if a Synagogue takes over the US government? Because if there is no legitimate separation of church and state, then the stampede for power is on, right? Every religion is gonna want to be in charge!
Wait... wouldn't that be what is known as a... theocracy? Hmm. Gonna have to whip up some constitutional amendments to pull that one off, methinks. Ready for the challenge?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Why is this so hard for leftists to understand?
How would a religion take over the government? By displaying Christmas lights?
Oh, I'm hardly a leftist. I agree with conservatives on as many issues, if not more, than I do with liberals, so it's usually a bad idea to pigeonhole a person based on a single post. But this entire separation of church and state issue is utterly ridiculous. If, as some have implied, there is no separation of church and state, then the church could legitimately insinuate itself inside of government itself.
If that's okay with you and the constitution, I'm just asking which church you want to see take over and start codifying religious beliefs into laws... laws that would most certainly infringe on somebody else's religious or non-religious belief.
This is why the entire argument is so damned ludicrous. It's obvious that the constitution intended and SCOTUS has confirmed that there IS separation of church and state in this country. So why the heck does every political forum board I've ever been to have one of these church/state threads every couple of weeks... and why do people still take them seriously?
As if you couldn't tell, my original post was issued pretty much tongue-in-cheek, although I couldn't find the appropriate tongue-in-cheek smilie!
