Supreme courts, make decisions as to the nature of Law itself, although they are supposed to follow the intent of the politicians in making these laws, they quite often interpret in ways that strike up new laws and intent by themselves.
The interpretation of these fore-mentioned are used to guarantee religious freedom, the right to bear arms and other problems based on the rights of the individuals over those of the state.
@Ionus,
The laws of the US are made up from
1whats in the Cosntitution
2whats in the Codes of Federl REgulations (CFRs)
3what the SUpremeCourt sefines the laws to mean (with respect to the Constitution)
The US Constitution NEVER contained language about slavery until the 13th Amendment which stated simply
"Neither Slavery nor Indentured servitude(except as a means of criminal punishment), shall exist in the United STates)
Prior to this, and since at least 1790's till the Civil War, there had been several laws and decisions maded by the US govt and Courts that actually Aided and ABetted the industry of slavery. (It was considered a means of conducting business in the mainly rural southern states where agriculture ruled). There were actually 2 key laws passed by Congress in 1793 and in 1850 that were called "The Fugitive SLave ACts". The last of these (the 1850 version), Actually REQUIRED any citizen to give assistance in the recapture of reunaway slaves so they could be returned. As a result of the First Fugitive SLave ACt, the vast anti slavery movement began to focus their activities to assist runaway slaves to reach freedom of the "Free STates" or into Canada. The institution called "The Underground RAilroad" had developed very sophisticated paths of escape in the East and Midwest US. (the use of these "railroads" in 19th century US literature is an example of how most people in the Northern states felt about the institution of slavery). When the 1850 lkaw was passed, it led to open defiance of the law. In Boston there were large demonstrations against the movement of several slaves to the docks for return to their "owners" and in Pa in 1851 , in a town called Christiana (about 4 miles from my farm) was the "Christiana Riot" where a bunch of slave hunters were held and fired on , and a subsequent skirmish ensued that left a person killed and several wounded and lots of propwerty dmage as the rioters "smoked the slave hunters out". This was quelled by the militia and the slaves were returned (I believe). The Christiana Riots ere considered to be the "Opening SHots of the Civil War, over 10 years later) SO, the Constitution said nothing against slavery, the SUpremes had found in FAVOR of slavery byseveral decisions during the early 19th century, and the CFRs actually included laws that aided slavery.
In 1862 Lincoln signed an executive order, "what became known as the "Emancipation Proclamation". That was actually just a kind of hutzpah because it didnt really do anything except piss off his ennemies since it really was a "command for rebelling states to return to the Union by Jan 1 1862".Then, in the second half of the Proclamation, he identified in which 10 states the actual proclamation would apply.
It really wasnt until Lincoln had securely been re-elected in 1864(thanks in part to some key victories of the Civil War) that he enacted his plan to have Congress forward to him, for his signature, an actual AMENDMENT to the Constitution (the 13th) which outlawed slavery. This amendment was signed by Lincoln in JAnuary 1865 and was ratified in December of that same year by the necessary 2/3 state legislatures (due in large part to the really brilliant career move by Lincoln to get assassinated ).
SO, as far as slavery went, we actually officially condoned it for most of our history before the civil war. It was an important issue of the civil war. The 13th amendment finally forbad slavery in December 1865.
NOW, making something illegal and getting it to be accepted, are two different things. The post '13th AMendment" history of the US requierd another (easily) 120 years to even make reasonable dent into the concept of equal rights for all. There we have a statement in our Declaration of Independence that talks about "equal rights" and "all men are created equal". These goals took over 300 years to be "fleshed out" .
So when I worry about being vigilant about the freedoms of (and from religion), I and ed, ros, set, and other US folks are a bit cynical about how things go . I doubt that an amedment to the 1st will arisethat favors one minor religious viewpoint. I do get concerned that if several states begin this great journey backwards based upon a literal view of ONE VERSION OF ONE RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT(, then the US SUpreme Court, depending on how politically mixed it is) may look favorably on some local laws that are becoming increasingly built upon fine points of constitutional law in a blatant attempt to skirt the "establishment cluse". THIS could happen should we ever get a majority conservative (Evangelical) court.
I dont think that the present court is that instrument because even Roberts and ALito, two ultra conservatives , ARE CATHOLICS not evangelical Christians> CAtholics are NOT idiots when it comes to accomodation with science. However. The SUpreme Court is made up on a purely random fashion dependent upon the
ages of its inhabitants during any particular presidents reign
2The social pressures of increasingly strident evangelicals and their minions in states like TExas, Arkansa and Louisiana.
ITs highly unlike;ly that the establishment clause will be interpreted in any fashion other than the way that Judge Jones stated in his DOver decision (Hes a conservative GOP , but is NOT an evangelically leaning one).
SO, in summary, our history of slavery has been one of quiet and public advocacy for much of our early history. The proces of change was slow and I hope I was clear in my rambling.
Evolution, as a basic underpinning of ALL BIOLOGY. should NEVER be subject to the caprice of evangelistic interpretation. There can therefore, NEVER be any accomodation to Creationistic bullshit or IDiotic Bullshit in BIOLOGY CURRICULA. It takes constant vigilance to keep anything unscientific from happening in the many corners of the vast US territory.
Ill bet Ionus that, its very similar in your own country (which is about the same size as ours). Its a map that celebrates and allows huge differences of regional opinions and rules. However, there are some basic universals that should never be fucked with, and I and several of us here have been active (not only in this forum buit in the real world) in ntrying toprevent the evangelical worldview from gaining ANY toeholds.
Evolution, as a basic underpinning of ALL BIOLOGY. should NEVER be subject to the caprice of evangelistic interpretation.
Heat is in proportion to the want of true knowledge.
Actually the Supreme Court of the US only renders decisons about the interpretation that the US Constitution would apply to the case under review. They never "follow the intent of the politicians" .
Thats sort of irrelevant in the argument about slavery since many of the decisions of the SUpremes involved an individuals rights under petition . The southern states loved the central govts laws and interpretations in suchareas as the Missouri Compromises, Fugitive Slave ACt and Dred SCott, KAnsas Nebraska etc. But they always made their thinly disguised case based entirely upon "states rights"
. If this were true, the rulings of the Supreme Court would never see-saw back and forth on the same topic. The Supreme Court, despite advertising to the contrary, is a law making body just like your combined houses.
They cite the constitution to justify their decision, but they would hardly need selecting for their political view points if that was all they did.
I insist it is relevant as one of the main purposes of the Supreme Court is to pick up on trends in society and make sure the constitution is interpreted in accordance with the wishes of the people.
There was clearly a strong trend towards individual rights despite the politics involved, and the only way this could end was in Civil War and a major readjustment of power.
In striking down the Arkansas and Louisiana legislation, the Court was following precedent. There was nothing politically partisan about it, and the entire process began with a conservative Court in the Illinois case.
Education commissioner Vilaseca sees limited impact from Texas textbook decision
(By DANIEL BARLOW, VERMONT PRESS BUREAU, May 26, 2010)
An attempt in Texas to give textbooks a conservative slant will have little or no effect on curriculum taught in Vermont schools, Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca said Tuesday.
Vilaseca condemned the recent actions taken by the Texas Board of Education to issue new textbook guidelines that present conservative political philosophies in a stronger light, including stressing that the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles.
"I am very concerned by any attempt by state school boards to rewrite history to fit a particular ideological view," Vilaseca said. "What has happened in Texas is very disconcerting."
The Texas Board of Education voted 10 to 5 earlier this year to issue new guidelines for textbooks used in their public schools. These new rules include requiring that history books teach about the "conservative resurgence" of the 1980s and downplaying the role of Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "separation of church and state."
These changes worry historians and teachers because the standards set by Texas " one of the country's largest textbook purchasers " influence new textbooks issued by publishers who do not want to publish multiple versions. To put it simply, a textbook using these Texas-approved guidelines could get used in classrooms in Vermont.
Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a member of the U-32 High School Board in East Montpelier, seconded Vilaseca's views.
He used to write textbooks for a living and says that the decisions made in California and Texas " the states with the two largest student populations " could affect what Vermont students are taught.
"This is an important issue not just in Texas, but right here in Vermont," Gilbert said.
Vilaseca said it is a possibility that some of those textbooks could be used in Vermont schools, but said that the national media attention on the Texas debate should make most school officials more aware of what they are buying to teach local children.
Unlike in Texas, textbooks in Vermont are selected by local school boards, he explained.
"We're a local control state," Vilaseca said. "What is taught in school districts in Montpelier might not be taught in a school district in Burlington."
Political battles over textbooks are nothing new. Some southern states have fought to include the teaching of creationism " the belief that an omnipresent being created the world " alongside the scientific theory of evolution.
And before this latest battle in Texas, educators there banned books deemed "anti-Christian" or "anti-American" from being used in classrooms in 2002. These books included one that stated that global warming was changing the world's climate.
Gilbert said the door swings both ways, too. Textbooks in California, for example, sometimes reflect progressive politics.
"A textbook from California might talk about non-meat items in food chapters to reflect a vegetarian lifestyle," he said.
Vilaseca said it is dangerous for panels like the Texas School Board to meddle too much in the writing of textbooks. While board members might serve only for a few years, because the lifespan of public school textbooks are so long " it's not rare for a copy of a book to cost $200 " the long-term effect is there even after they leave.
"The textbooks don't go away," he said. "Teachers are the ones who should be addressing these issues."
The whole textbook debate could soon be moot, however. As the publishing industry embraces electronic texts and more schools supply students with computers and reading devices such as the Kindle or iPad, Vilaseca said the whole landscape will change.
Several Vermont school districts are already giving e-books out to their students, he said, a move that, in the long term, could be cheaper than buying new textbooks.
"We could soon be in a situation where we can download a whole book, or even just a chapter that we need, in seconds," Vilaseca said. "The costs won't be as high and we'll have a diverse selection of texts to choose from."
Gilbert agreed, saying that the e-book revolution is the "wild card" in the debate. But he said school boards need to be vigilant about what books are used and which ones are rejected.
"There is an opportunity here for individualized learning," he said.
The USSC doesnt go out soliciting things to hear.
For its time(and this is what I interpret), the loose confederation of the Union was exactly what was needed to protect against the rise of what we fought the Revolution about.
The point that I was confused about was when the INCORPORATION of the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause included the states, thus freeing up for these landmark cases like Epperson, or Aguillard.
THis was not a case that was brought up to test the laws....so a "test case" was hardly a worthwhile effort.
Ionus again displays a profound ignorance of the United States constitution,
The constitution does not give to the Supreme Court the power to decided the constitutionality of any laws. The power was inferred by Mr. Justice Marshall in the landmark case Marbury versus Madison.
It is silly to suggest that there were some great plan which the framers had which would, over time, reveal itself like holy writ.
a document sufficiently flexible to survive the test of time
