Mr. Sharon (who is very likely to be re-elected now; the Israeli news that I listen in the background prove this) unlike Mr. Bush is not a leader of the world's most powerful country.
trespassers will wrote:
1) Everyone should be free to practice whatever religion he or she chooses.
2) In order to ensure #1, the government must not establish an official religion.
au1929 wrote: Pointing out what it says cuts no ice.
First, au, what it says makes all the difference in the world. What is not there cannot be interpreted.
Now, I'm at work and don't have a copy of the constitution handy, so I'm going to do this from memory. ~"Congress shall pass no law respecting the
establishment of a religion." (My emphasis, of course) This may, and seems to me, to be quit a bit different than tres's item "2) . . . the government must not establish an official religion."
Makes no difference, and some would say that is all the more reason to be critical, steissd. Just be willing to accept, though not necessairly agree with, criticism of your own government.
Steissd, I believe even our President Buchannan came in for a bit of criticism here from an international assortment of members not long ago. Our Presidents get global attention by their very nature. Feel free to criticize ... everyone else does.
Phoenix :wink:
timber
roger
Quote:
First, au, what it says makes all the difference in the world. What is not there cannot be interpreted.
What is not there is interpreted on an ongoing basis by the USCC on many subjects. If the document was followed literally would the USCC need to make those decisions?
Thanks, Boss, although i'm certain there are those who will tear into it . . . but that's what fora are all about.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Remember that lawyers wrote the Constitution, and it's amendments, or were closely involved in the writing. The language of this amendment is specific, from a lawyer's point of view. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." very specifically includes any questionable activities of government for which a case could be made that an establishment of religion would be the result. The language chosen provides the opportunity to challenge governmental actions on the basis of an establishment in those cases in which the government in question hadn't necessarily intended to establish religion, or (as i would say the case is with the Shrub) is being disingenuous about the activity.
Whenever you wish to consult the Constitution, you can go
HERE . . .
On that page, look on the left hand size, down a little, for "Historical Documents." This will take you to a page with links to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That link doesn't work as i originally posted it, so i'll edit and fix it.
I've just realized that just putting " . . . you can go HERE . . . " on this thread isn't very helpful.
Here is the link, which you can copy, if you so desire:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
This is a page at the Library of Congress website.
Yes, au. Setanta just gave an interpretation of what is there. Do you have any idea what has developed from interpretations of the 'intestate commerce clause'?
That's not an interpretation, Roger, it's an explanation that the clause was written to be interpreted, as was virtually every clause in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun control advocates emphasize the first clause, especially the phrase "A well regulated Militia . . ." Those opposing gun control often quote this amendment without the first clause, as if the second clause were the only text. I've had gun control opponents tell me, when i've quoted the entire text to them, that the first clause is meaningless. This is not, of course, the case.
Article I, Section 8, subsection 16 reads: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" (The entire section begins "Congress shall have the power . . . , so that those powers are enumerated in the subsections.) The last time the Supremes "visited" the Second Amendment, in the late 1930's, it was in the case of an appeal by a man arrested for transporting a firearm across state lines--to wit, a shotgun. The Supremes denied the appeal, with the Opinion of the Court stating that the Court had no knowledge that Congress had designated shotguns as an arm of the Militia.
The entire Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were carefully crafted so that they would admit of interpretation by the courts. This is not an interpretation on my part--it is one of those rare occassions upon which i will state that this is historical fact.
roger, I'm assuming "intestate" was a typo ... I just can't seem to grasp the concept of "Commerce" leaving or not leaving A Last Will and Testament.
timber
That might be the case, however, if the entire town of Commerce, Indiana, died at once, and no wills could be found. (Nothing personal, Roger, just taking the opportunity for a little fun.)
Roger
To answer your question although I certainly don't know why you asked it. I know nothing about the 'interstate commerce clause'?
Either Bush does not believe in the separation of Church and State and is pandering to gain their support (which is disgusting), or he does (which is frightening).
au1929 wrote:We have been through this before. The constitution does not directly specify many things that are deemed to be constitutional or conversely unconstitutional. The USSC makes rulings of that nature on an ongoing basis. You know as well as I that the first amendment to the constitution has been interpreted among other things to call for a separation of Church and State. Pointing out what it says cuts no ice.
It clearly cuts no ice with you. It cuts ice with me, and with many who believe the Constitution was written to mean specific things, not simply whatever anyone could twist it to mean.
Quote:What it has been interpreted to mean does and is the law of the land.
Until that interpretation is challenged and overturned. You are aware that decisions do get reversed, are you not?
But convince me. Explain to me why you think the founding fathers intended a complete separation of church and state. Convince me that the reason for the 1st amendment prohibition against establishing a religion wasn't for the reason I stated. I'm not above admitting a valid point when I read one, so hit me with your best shot.
Tw
I only know what is accepted as the law of the land. That is all I have to know. When I am confirmed and put on my robe I will determine why. Until that time I will go along with prior decisions.
au1929 wrote:I only know what is accepted as the law of the land. That is all I have to know. When I am confirmed and put on my robe I will determine why. Until that time I will go along with prior decisions.
I wonder if you are as happy and uninquisitive regarding every decision of the USSC, but I will certainly accept it if you say that's the case here.
Which I guess leaves us nothing to discuss.
taking a look at the intent of the writers of the constitution reveals:
James Madison: "We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government
Thomas Jefferson: "...(T)o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1789).
